Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Project

Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem – Regional Component: Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental

resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas

EVALUATION REPORT- DRAFT 2

Sherry Heileman, Evaluation Consultant

June 2016

1

ContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................8

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................16

II. THE EVALUATION...................................................................................................................................16

III. THE PROJECT.........................................................................................................................................19

A. CONTEXT...........................................................................................................................................19

B. OBJECTIVES AND COMPONENTS.......................................................................................................19

C. TARGET AREAS/GROUPS....................................................................................................................20

D. MILESTONES/KEY DATES IN PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION............................................21

E. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND PROJECT PARTNERS........................................................21

F. PROJECT FINANCING..........................................................................................................................22

G. CHANGES IN DESIGN DURING IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................23

H. RECONSTRUCTED THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE PROJECT.................................................................24

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS........................................................................................................................25

A. STRATEGIC RELEVANCE.....................................................................................................................25

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES...................................................................................27

C. EFFECTIVENESS..................................................................................................................................41

D. SUSTAINABILITY, CATALYTIC ROLE, AND REPLICATION.....................................................................45

Sustainability.....................................................................................................................................45

Catalytic role and replication.............................................................................................................50

E. EFFICIENCY.........................................................................................................................................52

F. FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE................................................................................................54

Preparation and readiness.................................................................................................................54

Project implementation and management........................................................................................54

Stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships................................................................59

Communication and public awareness..............................................................................................61

Country ownership and driven-ness..................................................................................................62

Financial planning and management.................................................................................................63

Supervision, guidance, and technical backstopping..........................................................................66

Monitoring and evaluation M & E.....................................................................................................67

2

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................69

A. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................69

B. LESSONS LEARNED.............................................................................................................................73

C. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................74

ANNEXES...................................................................................................................................................77

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation consultant extends sincere gratitude to all who supported and contributed to this evaluation exercise, including individuals from the UNEP Evaluation Office, the Project Manager and Project Management Unit, Task Managers, MAP, MEDPOL, Co-executing Partners, participating countries, and to the ClimVar evaluation consultant for her collaboration in conducting the interviews in the countries that were not visited by the MedPartnership evaluation consultant.

4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AECID Spanish Agency for International Development CooperationBOD Biological oxygen demandCAMP Coastal Area Management ProgrammeCEO Chief Executive Officer CG Strategic Partnership Coordination GroupClimVar Climate variability and change projectCOD Chemical oxygen demandDEPI Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (UNEP)DGEF Division of GEF Coordination (UNEP)EAF Ecosystem approach to fisheriesEC European CommissionELV Emission Limit ValuesEMS Environmental Management SystemEQS Environmental Quality StandardsESM Environmentally sound managementEST Environmentally sound technologiesFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFFEM Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (French GEF)FMO Financial Management OfficerGEB Global Environmental BenefitGEF Global Environment FacilityGFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (FAO)GWP-Med Global Water Partnership – MediterraneanICZM Integrated coastal zone managementIF Investment Fund (of the Strategic Partnership)IHP International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO)INFO/RAC Environmental Information and Communication RACIRBM Integrated river basin managementIW International WatersIWRM Integrated water resource managementLME Large Marine EcosystemM&E Monitoring and evaluationMAP Mediterranean Action PlanMDG Millennium Development GoalsMEDPOL Programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the MediterraneanMedPartnership Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem MIO-ECSDE Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable DevelopmentMPA Marine protected areaMTF Mediterranean Trust FundNAP National Action PlanNCPC National Cleaner Production CentreNGO Non-governmental organization NIP National Implementation PlanOP Operational Programme (GEF)OVI Objectively verifiable indicatorPAP/RAC Priority Actions Programme RACPCA Project Cooperation AgreementPCB Polychlorinated biphenylPDF Project development fundPIR Project Implementation Review

5

PM Project managerPMU Project Management Unit POPs Persistent organic pollutantsPSC Project Steering CommitteeRAC Regional Activity CentreRC Regional component (of the Strategic Partnership)ROtI Review of outcomes to impactSAP Strategic Action ProgrammeSAP-BIO Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean

Region SAP-MED Strategic Action Programme to Address Pollution from Land-Based ActivitiesSCP/RAC Sustainable Consumption and Production RACSPA/RAC Specially Protected Areas RACSustainable MED Mediterranean Environmentally Sustainable Development Program (World Bank)SWIM Sustainable Water Integrated Management (EC)SWITCH-Med Switching to more sustainable consumption and production in the Mediterranean (EC)SWM Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean (UfM)ROtI Review of outcomes to impactTDA Transboundary Diagnostic AnalysisTE Terminal evaluationTEST Transfer of Environmentally Sound TechnologiesTOR Terms of referenceUfM Union for the MediterraneanUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationWB World BankWSSD World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentWWF-MedPO World Wide Fund for Nature – Mediterranean Programme Office

6

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE

UNEP PIMS ID: GF/ 6030 – 08 - 15 IMIS number: GFL-2322-4A05-2731

Sub-programme: International Waters-9: Land & Water Cuts across

Expected Accomplishment(s)1:

Four of the six cross-cutting thematic priorities:The ecosystem management objectiveThe environmental governance objectiveThe harmful substances and hazardous waste objectiveResource efficiency

UNEP approval date: 11 August 2008 PoW Output(s): Promoting regional and multi-country cooperation to achieve global environmental benefits

GEF project ID: 2600 Project Type: FSP

GEF OP #: OP 14SP 1, SP Focal Area(s): International Waters, POPs

GEF approval date: 9 April 2008 GEF Strategic Priority/Objective:

GEF 4 IW 2: “To catalyze transboundary action addressing water concerns”1. To foster international multi‐state cooperation onPriority transboundary water concerns.2. To catalyze transboundary action addressing water concerns. SP1 SP3

Expected Start Date: September 2008 Actual start date: August 2009

Planned completion date:

August 2013 Actual completion date: December 2015

Planned project budget at approval:

$ 49,447,200 Total expenditures reported as of [date]: 46,493,766

GEF Allocation: $ 11,891,000 GEF grant expenditures reported as of 31 december 2015:

$ 11,559,010

PDF GEF cost: $ 700,000 PDF co-financing: US$ 1,258,500

Expected MSP/FSP co-financing:

$ 35,597,700 Secured MSP/FSP co-financing: $ 34,934,756

First Disbursement: N/A Date of financial closure: N/ANo. of revisions: 2 Date of last revision:Date of last Steering Committee meeting: 17-20 February 2014

Mid-term review/ evaluation (planned date):

MedPartnership Project September 2012

Mid-term review/ evaluation (actual date):

MedPartnership July 2013

Terminal Evaluation (actual date): Nov 2015- May 2016

1 The MedPartnership project was formulated several years prior to the publication of the UNEP Medium-Term Strategy 2010-2013 that sets out UNEP’s Expected Accomplishments and Programmatic Objectives, so there are no explicit references to alignment in the project document (Source MidTerm Review)

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

1. The Global Environment Facility (GEF)-supported ‘Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem – Regional Component: Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas’ was implemented by UNEP and executed by UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) Coordinating Unit from August 2009- December 2015 (including two project extensions). Thirteen GEF eligible countries were the major project beneficiaries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Montenegro, Palestinian Territories, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. The main purpose of the Regional Component (RC) was to support implementation of the Strategic Action Programme to Address Pollution from Land-based Activities (SAP MED), the Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Region (SAP BIO), and National Action Plans (NAPs), and to prepare the ground for implementation of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. 2. Ten technical co-executing partners were engaged by MAP: UNESCO/International Hydrographic Programme (IHP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which are UN organizations; Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs): Global Water Partnership-Mediterranean (GWP-Med), Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture, and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE), and World Wildlife Fund Mediterranean Programme Office (WWF-MedPO); MAP Regional Activity Centers (RAC): Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) RAC, Priority Actions Programme (PAP) RAC, and Specially Protected Areas (SPA) RAC, and MAP’s Programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean (MEDPOL).3. The project design consisted of four components (three of them technical and one concerned with project management, communication, NGO involvement, and replication strategy) divided into 11 sub-components. Each partner was responsible for one or more sub-component(s), either alone or working with other partners. 4. The GEF grant for the project was US$11,891,000, and actual expenditure on GEF funds as at 21 April 2016 was US$11,696,682 (about 98% of the GEF allocation). Of the balance of US$194,318, the sum of US$189,996 was allocated to PMU staffing and contractual services in 2016. Pledged co-financing was US$35,597,700. Ninety percent of the total pledged co-finance of US$38,810,578 equivalent to US$34,932,756, was realized, and included cash co-finance from MAP and co-executing partners of US$16,064,641. 5. The mid-term evaluation (MTE) was undertaken in 2013, and assigned an overall rating of ’Moderately Satisfactory’ to the project because of slow delivery by certain sub-components and other issues. It made a number of recommendations to address the key concerns and also proposed an extension to enable the project to complete all activities. The terminal evaluation (TE) of the project was conducted from November 2015 - May 2016 by an independent consultant contracted by the UNEP Evaluation Office.

Summary of main evaluation findings

6. Implementation of the MedPartnership project began in August 2009, 15 months after GEF approval. The project was extended at the end of the inception phase to August 2014 and again following the MTE to 31 December 2015 to allow completion of all remaining activities. The

8

MedPartnership comprised two components: an Investment Fund and a Regional Component, the latter of which is the focus of this terminal evaluation. 7. The RC was a complex project in terms of the large number of activities (over 170) and about 80 demonstration projects spread over various thematic areas including integrated water resources management (IWRM), integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), coastal aquifers, pollution control and management, resource efficiency, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable management of fisheries, with the involvement of 13 participating Mediterranean countries and many other stakeholders. The execution arrangements were similarly complex as would be expected for a project of this scope, with 10 co-executing partners engaged by MAP to lead the different sub-components. This partnership was at the core of the RC, with MAP and the Project Management Unit (PMU) providing excellent leadership and coordination of this complex arrangement. Furthermore, the project was strengthened by collaborating with other ongoing regional projects and programmes such as the Horizon 2020 Initiative to Depollute the Mediterranean and the Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean, and by engaging a wide cross-section of stakeholders including public and private sectors, NGOs, academic institutions, and local communities. 8. Embedding the project in MAP and harnessing a network of partners in the region was one of the RC’s greatest strengths. MAP has not only provided a robust institutional platform for executing the project, but along with its many partners, is an effective institutional framework to sustain the project outcomes in the region. The PMU was relatively small for a project of this scope and complexity and was also affected by staffing shortfalls in 2012-2013 when the project manager retired and the administrative assistant resigned, and in 2015 when the Coastal and Marine Expert moved to MEDPOL. Nevertheless, the participatory and adaptive management approaches adopted by the PMU along with competent partners all working together towards common goals has contributed to the impressive achievements and success of the project. In this regard, MAP and the PMU along with the co-executing partners are highly commended by the TE. 9. The MedPartnership project has successfully delivered its planned outputs and outcomes to support harmonized policy, institutional, and legal reforms for the protection of biodiversity and pollution reduction from land-based sources. Furthermore, some of the expected targets were surpassed. The NAPs have been updated and a number of guidelines and action plans were produced. The adoption in February 2016 by the Barcelona Convention COP of various guidelines and action plans was an important achievement, which has major implications for sustainability. These results will facilitate the implementation of the SAP MED and SAP BIO and NAPs as well as the ICZM Protocol, which was its primary intended purpose. In the longer term, with replication and upscaling, the project results will contribute to reversing environmental degradation trends and living resources depletion in the Mediterranean large marine ecosystem (LME). Replication and upscaling, however, will require substantial investments in the countries, mechanisms for which should be identified by MAP in collaboration with relevant partners. 10. Through the MedPartnership project, the countries have advanced their ICZM and IWRM planning (including the management of coastal aquifers) and have improved their capacity for biodiversity protection through MPAs and more sustainable fisheries management though the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). In addition, through links with the parallel ClimVar project, climate variability and change considerations have been integrated into ICZM plans in some of the participating countries. Stakeholders have also benefitted from strengthened capacity to address land-based pollution for a number of sectors and from increased resource efficiency in private enterprises using innovative technologies (Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology or TEST approach). However, not all the countries have adequate capacity to assimilate the results in national policy and planning processes, and will require further support in this regard.

9

11. The project has left a valuable legacy within the region and the countries, including strengthened human and institutional capacity; the large volume of knowledge generated; assessments; tools, strategies, guidelines, and action plans; lessons learned and experiences; increased stakeholder awareness; and strengthened partnerships, among others. Stress reduction was also achieved through implementation of environmental management systems (EMS) and TEST approaches and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) collection and disposal. Increases in stress reduction are expected to be achieved in the future as implementation of the two SAPs and NAPs advance, which will require substantial investments. There are excellent prospects for sustainability of the project outcomes in terms of the socio-political setting, institutional framework, and financial resources. 12. The MedPartnership has high visibility in the region and beyond, and has created a considerable level of interest and momentum at national, regional, and international levels for actions to address the environmental issues facing the LME and to promote sustainable management. This is evident in the number of large regional and sub-regional initiatives that are being planned or under implementation with donor support (including GEF and the European Commission) and that build on the RC results, and continuation of activities and reforms in many of the countries. MAP is taking advantage of this momentum and the results achieved to develop the next phase of the project as a programme (MedProgramme), which will help in securing larger-scale and sustained environmental impacts in a more cost-effective way and which will help to leverage needed investments. The TE fully supports this initiative, and urges GEF to favourably consider the proposed programme when the proposal is submitted.13. Delivery of the individual sub-components varied especially during the first few years of the project, and the MTE, which was conducted in 2013, assigned ratings ranging from ‘Satisfactory’ to ’Unsatisfactory’ to individual sub-components (the latter, for example, for activities on PCBs managed by MEDPOL). However, the MEDPOL sub-component made the most spectacular improvement in the post-MTE period and exceeded targets for PCB disposal, for which it is applauded. Slow delivery has been attributed to various factors including the level of preparation of the sub-component at entry including definition of the demonstration projects and unrealistic targets. Implementation in some of the participating countries was hampered by factors such as political conflicts in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria; limited capacity and coordination at the national level in certain countries; and administrative and bureaucratic processes. Other challenges encountered across the RC included delays in signing contracts and disbursement of funds; withdrawal of the Environmental Information and Communication (INFO)/RAC; discontinuation of the Investment Fund; etc. However, adaptive management actions taken by the PMU and partners enhanced the project’s resilience to these challenges. 14. The lowest MTE rating for any of the overall evaluation criteria was ’Moderately Unsatisfactory’, and was assigned to Country ownership / driven-ness, which was low at the time and was attributed to the project design and implementation having been largely driven by the co-executing partners. Feedback from national stakeholders during the TE suggested that the situation had changed and that there was a relatively high level of country ownership for the MedPartnership project. 15. The MTE assigned an overall rating of ’Moderately Satisfactory’ to the RC. Implementation of the MTE recommendations and extension of the project along with other specific measures taken by MAP and the co-executing partners were instrumental in accelerating implementation in the remaining timeframe and changing the trajectory of the affected sub-components towards successful completion. 16. The overall terminal evaluation rating for the MedPartnership RC is Highly Satisfactory, reflecting achievement of project outputs, outcomes, and objectives, and in some cases exceeding targets, as well as creation of excellent enabling conditions for sustaining the project outcomes in the countries and the region. The following table presents the ratings and summary comments for each of the evaluation criteria discussed in Part III of this report.

10

Table 4.Summary assessment and ratings by evaluation criteria.

Highly Satisfactory (HS); Satisfactory (S); Moderately Satisfactory (MS); Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU); Unsatisfactory (U); Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). Sustainability is rated from Highly Likely (HL) down to Highly Unlikely (HU).

Criterion Summary assessment TE rating MTE ratingA. Strategic relevance The project is highly relevant to all the criteria but human

rights based approach (HRBA) and inclusion of indigenous peoples was not explicitly addressed although the project is relevant to achieving WSSD targets

S S

B. Achievement of outputs and activities

The project delivered all planned outputs and activities, some of which had to be revised during the course of the project. A few were cancelled or relocated mainly as a result of the conflicts in some countries.

HS MS

C. Effectiveness The project has achieved its stated outcomes and objectives, and in some cases has exceeded its targets. It also achieved stress reduction through the TEST and PCB sub-components.

HS MS

D. Sustainability and replication

This rating is based on the lowest rating in any of the individual categories for this criterion

L ML

Socio-political sustainability There are good prospects for socio-political sustainability in most of the countries but risks from ongoing conflicts and instability in others. As the Mediterranean LME is a shared system, conditions in bordering countries can have impacts on the entire system.

L ML

Financial resources This rating reflects excellent prospects for sustainable financing through the various donors with interest in the region as well as through national budgets in some of the countries.

HL ML

Institutional framework Well-established regional institutional frameworks and mechanisms and strengthened national institutional frameworks are already engaged in management of the Mediterranean.

HL L

Environmental sustainability

Implementation of the SAPs and NAPs will promote environmental sustainability although climate change impacts and others factors could diminish environmental gains.

L L

Catalytic role and replication The project has a major catalytic effect, which is already evident as are efforts to promote replication and many actual replications already taking place at the national and regional levels.

HS S

E. Efficiency Although there were several sources of cost-effectiveness, delays encountered and need for two project extensions reduced efficiency.

MS MS

F. Factors affecting performancePreparation and readiness There was limited consultation at national level leading to

some weaknesses in project definition as well as delays in launching the project after approval. The MTE rating has to be retained in the TE.

MS MS

11

Project implementation and management

This rating reflects overall excellent implementation approach and adaptive management at the regional level in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, but some weaknesses at the national level.

S MS

Stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships

The project was characterized by excellent stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships. It closely engaged a wide range of key stakeholders at regional, national, and local levels and adopted a highly participatory approach to implementation.

HS MS

Communication and public awareness

Communication was generally good but could have been better between co-executing partners and countries, and within countries. The project succeeded in considerably raising public awareness.

S Merged with stakeholder participation

Country ownership and driven-ness

A high level of country driven-ness and generally good level of ownership was demonstrated by most of the participating countries

S MU

Financial planning and management

Satisfactory, although the financial planning and management was challenging because of the complexity of the project implementation arrangements and other factors.

S MS

Supervision, guidance and technical backstopping

Supervision, guidance and technical support including from UNEP were adequate.

S S

Monitoring and evaluation (M & E)

Based on the lowest rating for the sub-criteria. S MS

M & E design Improvements were made to the logframe and M & E plan during project implementation.

S MS

M & E Implementation M & E implementation was in accordance with UNEP and GEF procedures.

S MS

Budgeting and funding for M&E activities

Budgeting and funding for M&E activities were adequate. S S

Lessons learned

17. The following lessons derived by the TE are based on the evaluation findings and relate to the key factors (positive and negative) affecting the project’s performance and achievements, and are relevant for development of other regional projects in the GEF International Waters portfolio:

1. Embedding the MedPartnership in an established regional framework (Barcelona Convention

and MAP) that has common goals regarding management of the Mediterranean LME provided many benefits and synergies to both the project and MAP. For example, in addition to facilitating project execution as the lead executing agency, MAP provided guidance and advice (including through the PSC), increased credibility and cost-effectiveness, contributed co-finance, enhanced the project’s visibility in the region, and promoted greater country buy-in including through the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, etc. Furthermore, MAP along with its many partners, provides a robust institutional and legal framework to replicate lessons derived by the MedPartnership and sustain the project outcomes in the region. In turn, the MedPartnership added value to MAP and enhanced conditions for implementation of MAP’s work programme. (para 165-167).

12

2. Engaging a range of partners for project execution in their respective areas of expertise is a necessary and effective strategy for implementation of a multi-faceted technical project covering different thematic areas across the various project components. The MedPartnership design was a complex one, with 11 sub-components spanning topics from IWRM and ICZM to pollution control and biodiversity protection and fisheries management. The project engaged a diverse mix of technical partners to lead specific activities consistent with their respective mandates and areas of expertise. This partnership arrangement was one of the project’s greatest strengths and largely responsible for successful delivery of the project. In addition, partners brought added benefits to the MedPartnership including bringing their own networks on board, mobilising additional expertise as well as co-finance, and strengthening the institutional foundation for sustainability of project outcomes. Coordination of such a partnership, however, can be challenging, and mechanisms to address this included the project Coordination Group and interagency meetings. (para 170-171, 175).

3. Involvement of core staff of the partner agencies in project execution (and not only external consultants) ensures that institutional memory is retained and facilitates uptake of the project results in the agencies’ ongoing and planned initiatives, promoting sustainability of project results. This experience also helps to promote learning and to strengthen the institutional capacity of the agencies to participate in similar projects and initiatives, to the benefit of the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment and its dependent human communities. (para 170).

4. National political instability and conflicts can derail regional projects, and for regions that are prone to such phenomena, project design must have sufficient flexibility and appropriate risk management strategies to ensure that the project is resilient to any adverse political circumstances and instability. Activities planned for Libya, Tunisia, and particularly Syria were affected by political instability and security concerns and some had to be cancelled or relocated to other participating countries. While this resulted in some delays, lost opportunities for, and reduced stakeholder engagement from the affected countries, etc., flexibility in the project’s workplan and willingness to adapt reduced the impact on the overall project. (para 41, 54, 62, 70, 124).

5. A project design and implementation approach driven by external partners (top-down) hinder countries from taking comprehensive ownership of the project. A demand-led process in which the project can be aligned with ongoing national processes and is responsive to national needs promotes ownership and facilitates implementation, uptake of results, and sustainability of outcomes. (para 204-207).

6. ‘One size does not fit all’. There was wide disparity among the countries in terms of technical and human capacity (especially between North African countries and the Balkan countries), financial resources, institutional frameworks, priorities, and needs. This limited the extent to which the ‘weaker’ countries were able to contribute to (e.g., co-finance) as well as benefit from the project including assimilation of results in national policy and planning. These differences must be considered in developing future projects, and activities may need to be tailored according to the specific needs and circumstances in the countries. Further, countries must be provided with adequate financial and other resources, and capacity adequately strengthened to enable them to effectively carry out the tasks they are assigned for execution of activities and to be able to utilize the results in national planning processes. In addition, countries need support for replication and upscaling of lessons and best practices, and in this regard, development of an investment programme will be necessary. (para 184).

7. Engagement of stakeholders at all levels including political levels and local communities is just as important as technical activities. The MedPartnership was a very technical project, but

13

embedded in all the components were strong stakeholder engagement and awareness raising elements. A stakeholder engagement plan and NGO engagement plan were developed and a specific organisation (Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development) was contracted to handle stakeholder engagement, communication, and public awareness. Directly involving stakeholders in execution of project activities and demonstration projects help to strengthen capacity through learning by doing, increase ownership and buy-in for the project, and promotes acceptance of environmental management interventions and regulations, thereby encouraging necessary changes in stakeholder behaviour to reverse negative environmental trends on the longer term. (para 189-196).

8. The presence of a competent national coordinator as well as strong national project team and institutional frameworks, and linking the project’s objectives and activities with ongoing national projects and programmes are key to success at the national level and increases the potential for uptake and sustainability of project results. For example, synergy was built with MAP CAMP in Montenegro, which enabled the ICZM strategy to gain strong political support and commitment. In general, in countries where these structures were weak, the challenges to implementation are magnified and prospects for assimilation of the results in national policy and planning are lower. (para 178 - 185).

Recommendations

18. Since the project has ended, the following recommendations look ahead to sustaining the project outcomes and the development of future projects. Several other recommendations are included throughout the report.

1. The MedPartnership project has established a strong foundation for addressing the priority transboundary issues facing the Mediterranean LME, but replication and upscaling of project results throughout the region are necessary in order to achieve long-term impacts. This will require substantial investments, and MAP is encouraged to move forward quickly with developing the next phase of the MedPartnership project (MedProgramme) and identifying and securing commitment from potential donors including the GEF, before the momentum created by the MedPartnership is lost. GEF and other donors are urged to support this next phase, which will add value to previous investments. Further, UNEP and MAP should make every effort to ensure that implementation of the next phase occurs in a timely manner without an extended inception period, should the project be approved.

2. Despite the range of valuable outputs and results generated by the project, most of the participating countries need additional support to assimilate the results in national policy and planning, develop monitoring programmes, improve data collection and sharing, and achieve greater integration among thematic areas in management programmes, etc. MAP in collaboration with co-executing partners should identify mechanisms to provide the necessary support to the countries including further capacity strengthening. Participating governments should also seek opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and strengthen their capacity, for example, by linking with those countries with more advanced programmes to learn from their experiences so they can be adapted and replicated in their own countries. MAP can facilitate this south-south collaboration. MAP and UNEP should also identify opportunities to assimilate the results in their own work and in future projects in the Mediterranean region.

14

3. The MedPartnership encountered difficulties with low staffing in the PMU for a project of this scope and complexity. This was exacerbated by loss of staff members at various times during project implementation, and although the PMU performance was exemplary despite these challenges, this situation placed a rather heavy burden on the PMU staff and on certain MAP staff members. In addition, most of the countries reported that limited human capacity constrained the extent of their participation in the project. In developing future project(s), UNEP and MAP should assess human resources needs for project management and technical support at the PMU and country level, and ensure that measures are taken to fill these needs in a timely manner.

4. Although there was wide stakeholder engagement during implementation of the MedPartnership, the involvement of NGOs, private sector, and Mediterranean countries that are not eligible for GEF funding could have been greater, although it is recognized that the project design might not have allowed for this. In developing future projects, UNEP and MAP should identify opportunities to more closely involve NGOs and the private sector in project activities and to engage more closely with non-GEF eligible countries that share the LME. More UNEP officers should be also involved in projects from the design phase to maximize opportunities for synergies with other UNEP projects and programmes, avoid duplication, and facilitate uptake of results in its own work.

5. The MedPartnership has produced a substantial volume of knowledge and information as well as a number of tools and guidelines, lessons, and experiences. MAP and UNEP should ensure that this valuable legacy is carefully preserved and institutionalized within their own programmes as appropriate. In addition, MAP and UNEP should take actions to widely showcase and disseminate the project results at the national, regional, and global levels, including to other Regional Seas Programmes and LME projects, using appropriate mechanisms including the UNEP, MAP and MedPartnership websites. Further, it is recommended that MAP undertake translation into the appropriate languages of the key documents produced by the project so that they are of greater utility to the participating countries. Sources of funds to cover translation costs will need to be identified, and potential sources include the follow-on phase being developed by MAP and countries’ national budgets.

6. A number of challenges to project implementation were encountered at the national level, which can be attributed to various factors including internal politics, administrative hurdles and bureaucracy, limited human and institutional capacity, poor performance of focal points, financial constraints, and political conflicts and civil war. In developing future projects with a national component, UNEP and MAP should carefully identify potential problems that represent substantial sources of risk, and take appropriate decisions and identify necessary measures for risk mitigation.

15

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This report presents the findings of the terminal evaluation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) full size project ‘Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem – Regional Component: Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas’. The other component of the Strategic Partnership was the ‘Investment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Partnership (which was led by the World Bank but was discontinued). The main purpose of the Regional Component (RC)2 was to support implementation of the Strategic Action Programme to Address Pollution from Landbased Activities (SAP MED) and the Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Region (SAP BIO), and to prepare the ground for implementation of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. Thirteen GEF eligible countries participated in and were the major project beneficiaries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Montenegro, Palestinian Territories, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey.2. The MedPartnership project was implemented by UNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) and executed by UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) Coordinating Unit in collaboration with 10 technical co-executing partners: UNESCO/International Hydrographic Programme (IHP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which are UN organizations; NGOs: Global Water Partnership-Mediterranean (GWP-Med), Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture, and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE), and World Wildlife Fund Mediterranean Programme Office (WWF-MedPO); MAP Regional Activity Centers (RAC): Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) RAC, Priority Actions Programme (PAP) RAC, and Specially Protected Areas (SPA) RAC, and MAP’s Programme for the Assessment and Control of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean (MEDPOL). The project officially started in August 2009, and was extended at the end of the inception phase to August 2014, and again following the mid-term evaluation to 31 st December 2015. 3. The GEF grant for the project was US$11,891,000. Pledged co-financing was US$35,597,700, equivalent to 75% or the total cost of the project. The mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the regional component was undertaken in 2013, just over three years into implementation of the project and two and half years after the adoption of the project inception report by the Project Steering Committee (PSC).

II. THE EVALUATION

Evaluation objectives

4. In line with the UNEP Evaluation Policy and the UNEP Evaluation Manual, the terminal evaluation (TE) is undertaken at the end of the project implementation period to assess project performance (in terms of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency), and to determine outcomes and impacts (actual and potential), including their sustainability, stemming from the project. Main evaluation principles and

2In this report, the RC is also referred to as the MedPartnership project or the project. The RC and Investment Fund together constitute the Strategic Partnership.

16

criteria are presented in the evaluation Terms of Reference (TORs) in Annex 1. The two primary purposes of the terminal evaluation were:

i. To provide evidence of results to meet accountability requirements; andii. To promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing through results and lessons learned among UNEP and the executing partners.

5. The evaluation was guided by a set of key questions based on the project’s intended outcomes:

(a) To what extent has the project achieved these objectives in the target countries:- Facilitation of harmonized policy, institutional and legal reforms for the protection of biodiversity

and pollution reduction from land-based sources consistent with the provision of the SAP MED and SAP BIO;

- Provision of assistance to countries in advancing their ICZM and IWRM plans (including the management of aquifers) with emphasis on the protection of biodiversity and the prevention of pollution from land-based sources;

- Execution of demonstration projects that address biodiversity protection, pollution from land-based sources and enhanced application of ICZM, IWRM and management of aquifers;

- Effective involvement of all stakeholders in the implementation of activities at regional and national level, and enhancement of capacity in Governments to address environmental problems and to incorporate environmental considerations into national planning.

(b) To what extent is the project contributing towards the full implementation of SAPs and NAPs thus reducing pollution from land-based sources and preserving the biodiversity and ecosystems of the Mediterranean from degradation, in line with MDG/WSSD Environmental targets?(c) To what extent mechanisms for future financial and political sustainability/ownership of SAP and NAPs-related activities by COPs to the Barcelona Convention are in place and will they ensure a long term financing?(d) To what extent is the project anticipated to contribute to reversing marine and coastal degradation trends and living resources depletion?(e) To what extent the MedPartnership management structure was adequate, responsive and well-functioning to ensure co-ordination among the two projects?(f) Will the sustainability of approaches developed by the project be ensured beyond the life span of the project? (g) To what extent and how have the recommendations of the MTE MedPartnership Project been implemented? (h) Did the partnership between MedPartnership Project and ClimVar & ICZM Project result in successful strategic framework which brought together, all partners/donors/countries working in the Mediterranean, and ensured a common vision and direction of effort in past and future projects?

6. These questions were expanded by the consultant and used in the interviews. The project document and logical framework (Annex 2) were used to assess the quality of project design in the TE inception phase (Annex 3). The project was assessed based on a set of evaluation criteria, which are included in the evaluation TORs. All evaluation criteria were rated in accordance with standard UNEP assessment guidelines, which are also given in the evaluation TORs.

17

Evaluation approach

7. The evaluation was conducted between November 2015-May 2016 by an independent consultant contracted by UNEP and under the overall supervision of the UNEP Evaluation Office (Nairobi). The evaluation of the MedPartnership RC was conducted in close collaboration with the terminal evaluation of the parallel project ‘Integration of climate variability and change into national strategies for the implementation of the ICZM Protocol in the Mediterranean’ (ClimVar), which was also executed by MAP and which shared the same project management unit (PMU) as the MedPartnership. Another consultant was contracted for the ClimVar evaluation, and where country visits and interviews were undertaken by only one of the consultants, information was gathered for both projects. 8. The findings of the evaluation are based on both quantitative and qualitative methods that were used to evaluate project achievements against the expected outputs, outcomes, and impacts, and which consisted of:

i. A desk review of key project documentation including the project document, SAP BIO, SAP MED, Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, project inception report, a sample of technical outputs, annual project implementation review reports (PIR), annual progress reports, partnership agreements, and relevant websites, among others (Annex 4).

ii. Attendance by the evaluation consultants of the final Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting and final event held in Athens in November 2015.

iii. Face to face/telephone/Skype interviews with the project manager, UNEP Task Manager, MAP personnel, co-executing partners, national focal points and other national stakeholders, among others. Many of these interviews were conducted during the final PSC meeting and final event in November 2015. Among individuals interviewed were those from the countries that were not visited and that were represented at the PSC meeting. A list of individuals interviewed is presented in Annex 5.

iv. Visits to Croatia and Montenegro (RC consultant) and Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria (ClimVar consultant) to meet with national and local partners and stakeholders. Because of the limited budget it was not possible to visit all the participating countries; countries to be visited were selected based on the number and status of project activities.

9. The evaluation schedule is given in Annex 6. Preliminary evaluation findings, lessons learned, and recommendations were presented for feedback via a skype teleconference on 24 th February 2016 to a group comprised of a member of the UNEP Evaluation Office, the MedPartnership Project Manager, UNEP Task Manager, MEDPOL Programme Officer, and Information Officer. The preliminary findings of ClimVar were also presented by the ClimVar TE consultant.

Limitations

10. No major limitations were encountered in the conduct of the evaluation. Because of funding constraints it was not possible for the consultant to visit all the participating countries or all the project sites in the countries that were visited. This, however, does not materially affect the quality of the evaluation.

18

III. THE PROJECT

A. CONTEXT

11. The Mediterranean Sea is the largest semi-enclosed European sea, occupying an area of about 2.5 million km2. It is surrounded by 21 countries with different levels of economic and social development, and high dependence on marine resources. Population density is greater in coastal areas than inland, with a population of 143 million. In addition, an estimated 176 million tourists visited the coastal region in 2000. By 2025, the population of the coastal zone is predicted to increase by an additional 31 million, with 130 million more tourists expected over this period. The Mediterranean Sea is a global biodiversity hotspot hosting 7% of the world’s known species of marine fauna and 18% of the world’s marine flora.12. The countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea are facing a variety of shared environmental problems that are transboundary in nature. Uncontrolled coastal development, population expansion, increasing coastal tourism, unregulated and unsustainable fishing, freshwater damming, over-extraction of freshwater (including from groundwater aquifers), and pollution especially from land-based sources are the greatest threats to the marine and coastal ecosystems of this transboundary basin. Climate change is also considered an important impending threat to the Mediterranean Sea ecosystems and bordering countries. 13. In a concerted effort to address the environmental problems facing the Mediterranean Sea the riparian countries agreed in 1975 to launch an Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Mediterranean Basin (MAP) and, in 1976, to sign a Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention). In 1995 the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention adopted the Phase II of the Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Sustainable Development of the Coastal Areas of the Mediterranean. The Convention has gradually expanded its scope of action through seven protocols, including protocols on specially protected areas and biological diversity, hazardous wastes and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). MAP involves 21 Mediterranean countries and the European Union. 14. Recognizing the need to protect the Mediterranean Sea, MAP with the financial support of the GEF launched a project to prepare a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Mediterranean Sea (TDA MED) followed by the preparation of the two Strategic Action Programmes previously mentioned. An updated TDA was produced between 2001 and 2006 through the GEF Project ‘Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Mediterranean Sea’, which was the immediate precursor to the Strategic Partnership project. The MedPartnership project was complemented by the ClimVar project, which aimed to support the implementation of the ICZM Protocol through the development of region-wide capacity, enabling environment, and tools needed to address climate variability and change in the Mediterranean Region.

B. OBJECTIVES AND COMPONENTS

15. The overall objective of the Regional Component was to catalyse implementation of the SAP MED and SAP BIO, and to prepare the ground for the future implementation of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. It aimed to fill the knowledge gaps and promote harmonized policy, legal, and institutional reforms to reverse marine and coastal degradation trends and living resources depletion, in accordance with the priorities agreed by the countries in the SAP MED and SAP BIO. The revised logical framework is presented in Annex 2. The RC consisted of four components, three of which focused on technical aspects and the other on project coordination, management, and communication. The four components with the 11 sub-components are presented in Table 1.

19

16. The objective of the Investment Fund was to accelerate the implementation of transboundary pollution reduction and biodiversity conservation measures in priority hotspots and sensitive areas in selected countries of the Mediterranean basin that would help to achieve the SAP MED and SAP BIO targets. This World Bank-supported component ran in parallel with the RC until 2011, when it was discontinued and replaced by the GEF/World Bank Sustainable Med project.

Table 1. Components and Sub-components of the Regional Component and responsible co-executing agencies

Component/Sub-Component Responsible Co-executing agenciesComponent 1. Integrated approaches for the implementation of SAPs and NAPs: ICZM, IWRM, and management of coastal aquiferSub-Component 1.1 Management of Coastal Aquifer andGroundwater

UNESCO/IHP (with support from GWP-MED and PAP/RAC)

Sub-Component 1.2 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

PAP/RAC and METAP (with support from GWP-MED and UNESCO/IHP)

Sub-Component 1.3 Integrated Water Resource Management

GWP-MED (with support from PAP/RAC and UNESCO/IHP)

Component 2. Pollution from land based activities, including Persistent Organic Pollutants: implementation of SAP MED and related NAPsSub-Component 2.1 Facilitation of policy and legislationreforms for pollution control

UNEP-MAP MEDPOL Programme

Sub-Component 2.2 Transfer of Environmentally SoundTechnology (TEST)

UNIDO

Sub-Component 2.3 Environmentally Sound Management of equipment, stocks and wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean Countries

UNEP-MAP MEDPOL Programme and SCP/RAC

Component 3. Conservation of biological diversity: implementation of SAP BIO and related NAPsSub-Component 3.1 Conservation of coastal and marinediversity through development of a Mediterranean MPAnetwork

RAC/SPA and WWF-MedPO

Sub-Component 3.2 Promotion of the sustainable use offisheries resources in the Mediterranean through ecosystem based management approaches

FAO/GFCM

Component 4. Project Co-ordination, Replication and Communication and Strategies, Management and M&ESub-Component 4.1 Project co-ordination, Management and M&E

UNEP-MAP, PMU, MIO-ECSDE, and MEDPOL ProgrammeSub-Component 4.2 Information and Communication strategiesSub-Component 4.3 Replication strategy

C. TARGET AREAS/GROUPS

17. The geographic scope of the RC was the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) environment and marine living resources as well as its coastal ecosystems and coastal groundwater aquifers. The main targeted groups of the RC were the 13 participating GEF-eligible countries mentioned above. The activities of the RC were developed based on priorities of all the countries, and were designed to involve all key stakeholders on a number of levels, from implementation, knowledge

20

transfer, dissemination, and replication. A list of key stakeholders is included in the project document as follows. Primary stakeholders at the national level include:

Public Sector: ministries responsible for water resources; environment; planning; transport, fisheries; industry; community development; education; and local government authorities

Private Sector: national and regional organizations representing: farmers; fisher folk; manufacturers/industrialists;

NGOs: national trusts; conservation associations; women’s organizations; community-based organizations;

Scientific community: researchers; sociologists; environmental managers; engineers (water, civil, environmental); biologists; teachers; curriculum specialists; media practitioners; and

General public such as the entire coastal population of the Mediterranean Basin (in particular those living in identified hotspots and sensitive areas) and the millions of tourists visiting the Mediterranean annually.

18. At the regional and global levels the key stakeholders are the signatories to the Barcelona Convention and other multi-lateral environmental agreements such as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Basel Convention, UN Convention to Combat Desertification, Rotterdam Convention, and Stockholm Convention as well as all individuals and organizations associated with sustainable management, biodiversity, and pollution from land-based sources in the region.

D. MILESTONES/KEY DATES IN PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

19. The first interagency and country discussions of the development of the MedPartnership project took place at the MAP-GEF Stocktaking Meeting held in October 2004 and the project entered the GEF pipeline in December 2004. A request for a PDF-B grant of US$700,000 was submitted in September 2005 and approved in October 2005 for development of the Regional Component. The project document was first submitted to GEF in December 2007 and then resubmitted incorporating responses to review comments in February 2008. The project was approved on 8 April 2008 by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GEF, with a GEF grant of US$12,891,000, including direct funding to UNIDO for sub-component 2.2 of US$1 million. 20. The project was approved by UNEP, as the Implementing Agency, in August 2008. An internal cooperation agreement (ICA) was signed between UNEP DGEF and UNEP-MAP, the lead executing agency, on 14 November 2008. The official start date of the project was considered as August 2009, when the PMU was established. The first Strategic Partnership Coordination Group (CG) meeting was held in September 2009 and the first Project Steering Committee (PSC) Meeting/Inception Workshop was held in Budva (Montenegro) in February 2010. Negotiations for legal agreements with the co-executing agencies started in May 2008 and the majority of agreements were signed between September and December 2009. The PSC requested a 12-month no-cost extension in February 2010 bringing the completion date to August 2014. The MTE was conducted in 2013, and based on its recommendation regarding project extension, the PSC agreed to another extension to December 31 st

2015. The final PSC meeting and final event to showcase the project results was held on 3-4 November 2015 in Athens. The terminal evaluation was conducted from November 2015 - May 2016.

E. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND PROJECT PARTNERS

21. The Implementing Agency for the project was UNEP, initially through its Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF) and following internal restructuring, through the Freshwater and Marine

21

Ecosystems Branch of its Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI). The lead Executing Agency was UNEP’s MAP Coordinating Unit located in Athens. The twelve participating countries were Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Montenegro, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. Palestinian Territories also participated. The technical co-executing partners are listed in paragraph 2 and Table 1, and consisted of UN Organisations, MAP Regional Activity Centres and MEDPOL Programme, NGOs, and the World Bank. The Regional Activity Centre for Environmental Information and Communication (INFO/RAC) was initially intended to be one of the co-executing agencies with responsibility for sub-components 4.2 and 4.3, but following its withdrawal from the project, this responsibility was assumed by the PMU.22. UNEP-MAP, through the PMU, was responsible for the overall coordination of the project and for delivery of Component 4. Both the MedPartnership RC and ClimVar were managed by the same PMU and utilised the same Steering Committee and Coordination Group. UNIDO was responsible for the implementation of Sub-component 2.2 through a separate GEF grant. Sub-Component 3.1 on marine protected areas (MPAs) was fully funded by the European Commission (EC) and supported by cash co-financing from other donors such as the Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial (FFEM), Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID) and MAVA Foundation as a separate project (Development of a Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Network through the boosting of Mediterranean MPAs creation and management in areas within national jurisdiction of third countries), which was executed by WWF-MEDPO and SPA/RAC.

F. PROJECT FINANCING

23. The GEF budget for the MedPartnership project was US$12,891,000. This included a GEF grant of US$1,000,000 to UNIDO (a GEF implementing agency) under a separate project for sub-component 2.2. Co-financing of US$950,500 (US$600,000 from the Italian Government) was provided to UNIDO. Pledged co-financing was US$36,548,200, equivalent to 75% or the total cost of the project. The project inception report includes a detailed table with information on co-financing pledged. A summary of project financing and sources are presented in Table 2 and allocation of funds across the four components/sub-components is shown in Table 3. Actual project expenditures and co-finance realized are presented in Section IIIF (Financial planning and management).

Table 2. MedPartnership Project cost per funding source

Total Cost USD

GEF (including funds to UNIDO) 12,891,000

Co-financing participating countries 13,100,000

Co-financing executing agencies 5,330,400

Others 10,894,300

Total co-financing 35,597,700

Total Cost of the Project 47,488,700

Total Cost including PDF-B 49,447,200

22

Table 3. MedPartnership Project cost divided per component and funding source

Components, Sub/component GEF ($) Co-finance ($)

Component 1. Integrated approaches for the implementation of the saps and naps: ICZM, IWRM and management of coastal aquifers 3,220,000 9,237,700

1.1. Management of Coastal Aquifers and Groundwater 1,770,000 4,973,000

1.2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) 950,000 2,164,700

1.3 Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) 500,000 2,100,000

Component 2. Pollution from land-based activities, including persistent organic Pollutants: implementation of sap-med and related naps 4,400,000 5,316,500

2.1. Facilitation of policy and legislation reforms for pollution control 950,000 1,086,000

2.2. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST-MED) 1,000,000 950,500

2.3 Environmentally Sound Management of equipment, stocks and wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries

2,450,000 3,280,000

Component 3. Conservation of biological diversity: implementation of sap-bio and related naps 800,000 16,031,600

3.1: Conservation of Coastal and Marine Diversity through the Development of a Mediterranean MPA Network 42,500 13,874,100

3.2. Promote the Sustainable Use of Fisheries Resources in the Mediterranean through the Development and Application of Ecosystem-based Management Approaches

757,500 2,157,500

Component 4: Project coordination, replication and communication strategies, and Management and M&E 4,471,000 5,962,400

4.1: Project Coordination, Management, and M&E 2,851,000 2,540,000

4.2: Information and Communication Strategies 530,000 1,231,000

4.3: Replication Strategy 1,090,000 2,191,400

G. CHANGES IN DESIGN DURING IMPLEMENTATION

24. Some changes were made to the project design during implementation but they did not affect the overall objectives of the project. Adjustments were made to the project log frame, monitoring matrix, programme of activities, and the budget during the inception phase to reflect changes in the project context since 2006 when the project document was prepared. Revisions were made to the log frame in 2014, consisting mainly of specifying indicators, elaboration of end-of–project targets for some outcomes, adding new activities such as funded through the new EC agreement and removing others, and elaborating some of the demonstration projects. End-of project targets were elaborated for sub-components 1.1 and 1.3. Other sub-components that were substantially revised (in 2014) were 2.1 (further elaboration of targets and demonstrations) and 2.3 (reduction in the quantity of PCBs to be

23

disposed, and withdrawal of Lebanon, Syria, and Libya, which were replaced by Bosnia & Herzegovina and Turkey). Sub-component 3.1 was revised to include new EC funded activities and targets, and the original indicators were revised and improved for sub-component 3.2. 25. Component 4 activities related to communications, information, and replication were taken over by the PMU with some work sub-contracted to MIO-ECSDE following the decision by the Italian government to reassign INFO/RAC. Two end-of-project targets were added to sub-component 4.2 (Minimum of 2 replication actions implemented and Lessons learned report on activities and best practices by 2015).

H. RECONSTRUCTED THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE PROJECT

26. The MTE constructed a separate Theory of Change (TOC) for the Strategic Partnership and for the Regional Component. The MTE TOC (Annex 7a) is very clear and analytical, and is an effective representation of the TOC of the project. It distinguishes outcomes at the objective level from outcomes that can more appropriately be described as impact drivers. For instance, Sustainable financing opportunities established, Effective project management, Replication and communication mechanisms, and Involvement of all key stakeholders are considered impact drivers that are important in ensuring the project results progress from its immediate outcomes to intermediate states and impacts. Two sets of intermediate outcomes are included, the first based on the project strategies and key indicators at objective level, and the second based on the scaling up and mainstreaming of these approaches. The environmental impact is based on the indicators for stress reduction and environmental impacts associated with the long-term goal of the project. The TE considers the MTE TOC (outcomes, intermediate outcomes/ states and long term impact) very relevant for the project.27. While the four assumptions identified by the MTE are valid, there are other important assumptions for achievement of intermediate outcomes and impacts. One of these assumptions is that the Mediterranean Sea ecosystems are resilient to climate change impacts and another is that the partnership established under the project will be sustained. 28. The TOC of the Regional Component prepared by the TE builds on the MTE TOC and is shown in Annex 7b. This incorporates some elements related to climate change impacts from the ClimVar project, recognizing that this phenomenon has a high potential to erode any gains in reversing environmental degradation and restoring ecological health as well as to compromise human health and well-being. Ecological and human resilience to climate change impacts will be an important requirement to achieve the long-term impact or Global Environmental Benefit (GEB). For the Regional Component, the GEB is defined as ‘Improvement in ecological and environmental condition of the Med and climate change adaptation ensures increase in ecosystem goods and services and improved socioeconomic benefits and well-being of users’. 29. A number of impact drivers are suggested. One of these (Focus of the project to implement the SAPs that were already endorsed by the governments to address agreed priority issues identified in the TDA) is seen as an important driver. The project aims to create an enabling environment for implementation of the two SAPs, and the fact that the countries have already committed in principle to implement the SAPs including the necessary reforms is expected to promote support for the project activities and move towards intermediate outcomes. The large number of assumptions reflects the wide scope and complexity of the project as well as of the Mediterranean system itself in terms of the multiplicity of actors, stakeholders, and human and environmental factors that affect it that are outside the control of the project.30. Unintended effects along other causal pathways can occur. For example, improvement in the provisioning of ecosystem services in the LME can attract more users (e.g., increase in the abundance of fish stocks encourage more people to enter the fishing industry especially if other forms of livelihoods

24

are less lucrative, or restored coastal ecosystems attract more tourists at the risk of exceeding the carrying capacity of the area). Not all of these users may adopt sustainable practices and these pathways could undermine achievement of the long-term impact if adequate measures are not in place.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS

A. STRATEGIC RELEVANCE

Global, regional, and national environmental issues and needs

31. The project is highly relevant to global, regional, and national environmental issues and needs. At the global level, Sub-component 2.3 is consistent with the objectives of the Stockholm Convention that aims to protect human health and the environment from POPs. In particular, this project helped the countries to fulfil their obligations for the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) and the phasing out of PCBs. Through its work on MPAs and EAF, the project also supported countries to move towards achievement of Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The project is relevant to the Basel Convention by providing opportunities for participating countries to properly manage hazardous wastes such used lubricating oils, lead batteries and other hazardous wastes coming from tanneries and phosphate fertilizer industries. 32. At the regional and national levels, the project aimed to support the implementation of the Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean Action Plan, and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) targets by the participating countries. In particular, the project supported implementation of the SAP-MED and SAP-BIO and NAPs, which are based on regional and national priorities and needs, through policy and institutional reforms. In doing so, the project outcomes will contribute to addressing the priority issues identified in the TDA (decline in biodiversity, unsustainable fisheries, decline in seawater quality, loss of groundwater dependent ecosystems, and human health risks due to exposure to contaminated food and water). Climate variability has also been recognized as an important issue in the region, and was addressed through the parallel ClimVar project.

UNEP’s mandate, policies, and programme of work

33. The project conforms with UNEP’s mandate and Strategic Objective for its GEF Programme of Work, which stipulates “Promoting regional and multi-country cooperation to achieve global environmental benefits”, and is consistent with the work programme of the UNEP-MAP within the framework of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme. Although the MedPartnership project was formulated prior to the publication of the UNEP Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) 2010-2013 that sets out UNEP’s Expected Accomplishments and Programmatic Objectives, the project contributes to four of the six MTS Subprogrammes while the ClimVar project contributes to the Climate change Subprogramme.

Ecosystem management : Addressed by Component 1 (ICZM, IWRM, and management of coastal aquifers) and by component 3 (work on MPAs and the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management as well as through implementation of the NAPs).

Environmental governance : Addressed through support for policy and institutional reforms and improved access to science and policy advice for decision-making as well as by reinforcing the Barcelona Convention process across all four project components.

25

Harmful substances and hazardous waste : Addressed through the work on POPs and PCBs (Component 2).

Resource efficiency: Addressed through the activities on efficient production and supply chains (TEST sub-component).

Bali Strategic Plan

34. Its emphasis on capacity building and demonstration of appropriate technologies (e.g., through TEST) as well as support for implementation of global and regional environmental conventions (paragraphs 45 and 46) makes the project highly relevant to the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building to strengthen the capacity of governments in developing countries and countries with economies in transition to address their needs, priorities, and obligations in the field of the environment.

GEF International Waters and POPs focal area’s strategic priorities and operational programmes

35. The project was designed in conformity with the GEF 4 International Waters (IW) and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Focal Area Strategies. It has contributed to GEF 4 IW Strategic Objective 2 (to catalyse transboundary action addressing water concerns) and to the three related strategic programmes (fish stocks and biodiversity, nutrient enrichment, water resources). Project Sub-components 2.1 and 2.3, specifically activities on management of POPs and disposal of PCBs, contributed to the GEF 4 POPs Strategic Objective, ‘to reduce and eliminate production, use and releases of POPs’, and to the related Strategic Programme 2.

Gender balance

36. Gender balance is not explicitly addressed in the project document. Nevertheless, the project engaged women in several activities including in capacity building and in the demonstration projects, although an estimate of the ratio of women is unavailable. In the Cap Négro - Cap Serrat area women from the local community, who traditionally play an important role in rural natural resource management, were engaged as spokespersons in promotion of MPAs. The SAP-BIO priorities and actions include ‘Encourage public participation, access to environmental and other information relevant to sustainable development; especially, emphasise the role of women as essential actors for sustainable development.’

Human rights based approach (HRBA)

37. In 2003, the UN adopted the UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation and Programming (the Common Understanding). In particular, the Common Understanding underlines, inter alia, that all programmes of development co-operation, policies and technical assistance should further the realisation of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments; and human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process. Damage to the environment can impair and undermine enjoyment of basic human rights, and the MedPartnership project aimed to address degradation of the Mediterranean Sea environment and loss of ecosystem services. Therefore, the

26

project outcomes are directly relevant to universally recognized human rights, such as the right to food, clean water, health and to a clean and safe environment.

South-South Cooperation

38. As a regional project, the MedPartnership represented a platform to facilitate cooperation among the participating countries in addressing priority transboundary environmental issues in the Mediterranean LME. The demonstration projects in particular facilitated south-south cooperation including though sharing of technology, knowledge, information, and experiences among the countries. Exchange of knowledge with other GEF projects is facilitated through the MedPartnership website and IW:Learn website as well as through co-executing partners’ websites.

B. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

39. The revised project results framework (2014) contains 10 sub-components that have been designed to contribute to 22 outcomes. However, the framework does not explicitly define Outputs although there are specific results areas under which the activities are grouped under a number of overarching themes. A summary of achievements under each sub-component is presented in the following paragraphs.40. The MTE assigned an overall rating on achievement of activities and outputs of ‘Moderately Satisfactory’.

Component 1

41. This component consisted of three sub-components: 1.1. Management of coastal aquifer and groundwater, executed by UNESCO-IHP; 1.2. Integrated coastal zone management, executed by MAP Priority Action Programme Regional Activity Centre (PAP/RAC), and 1.3. Integrated water resource management, executed by GWP-Med. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) were the overarching policy frameworks for all activities within this component, which focused on national and regional policy, legislation, and institutional reforms to support implementation of the ICZM Protocol, ratified in March 2011. This component was successfully completed, although some delays were experienced as a result of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and the process of political change in Morocco. In addition, it was not possible to complete the full set of national studies in Syria and Libya due to the conflicts in these countries. Activities focused on assisting with the elaboration of common IWRM policies through regional and sub-regional political and technical processes, and promoting integrated IWRM/ICZM policies and management planning at national and transboundary levels. Some of the recommendations and action plans have been approved or adopted at high political levels in certain countries. Instruments developed under the projects were adopted by the Barcelona Convention COP (COP19) in February 2016.

1.1. Management of coastal aquifer and groundwater

42. The 11 activities were organized under four overarching themes. A number of the outputs and activities are repeated under multiple themes.

27

1.1.1. Assessment of coastal aquifer risk and uncertainty and mapping of their vulnerability

43. Given the limited information available on groundwater resources in general, assessments were carried out to characterize the main coastal aquifers in the Mediterranean and establish a baseline on coastal aquifers and groundwater in the region, and determine priority intervention measures. Twelve national reports on assessment of risk and uncertainty of coastal aquifers were finalized and 11 national reports on the policy, legal and institutional aspects of coastal aquifers management were produced. An inventory and evaluation of 26 representative Mediterranean coastal wetlands dependent on groundwater with respect to their ecosystem services, status and trends were completed (in collaboration with partners such as the Ramsar Convention) and a map of representative Mediterranean coastal groundwater-related wetlands prepared. Tools and guidelines for coastal aquifer management and groundwater (e.g., aquifer vulnerability mapping and use of hydrogeochemistry to identify sources of groundwater pollution) were developed and applied at selected demonstration sites in Albania, Algeria, Croatia, Lebanon, Montenegro, Morocco, and Tunisia. A major output delivered was the coastal aquifer supplement to the TDA-MED. Because of the political sensitivity of information on national groundwater resources, one country limited its participation in the aquifers component and national authorities did not validate the national report and further requested that any information on transboundary elements be deleted. Only a summary of the report for this country is available. In developing future projects, mechanisms to handle these issues should be identified and agreed by all participating countries.

1.1.2. Regional actions for coastal aquifer management

44. This sub-component contributed to the transboundary integrated management plan including coastal aquifers for the transboundary Buna/Bojana area (Albania and Montenegro) and Algeria’s ICZM strategy and integrated coastal plan in Reghaïa (see below). The planned sustainable coastal land management activity in Tunisia was cancelled because of no funding from the Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial (FFEM) due to the short timeframe. An assessment of groundwater dependence of the Nador Lagoon, Morocco, was undertaken by the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. The use of multi-tracer hydrogeochemical techniques was demonstrated in the Bou-Areg coastal aquifer and the adjacent Nador Lagoon in Morocco, and enabled researchers to identify which natural processes or anthropogenic activities were responsible for elevated levels of salinity and nitrites in the aquifer and lagoon. Regional consultations with the participating countries were held to verify the findings of the regional assessments, and a regional action plan on coastal aquifers was developed and endorsed by the majority of the participating countries.

1.1.3. Legal, Institutional and policy reform for coastal aquifer management

45. Activities focused on the elaboration of common IWRM policies through regional and sub-regional political and technical processes, and promoting integrated IWRM/ICZM policies and management planning at national and transboundary levels. The recommendations and action plans have been approved or adopted at high political levels in some countries. Eleven national studies were conducted on the existing legal, policy and institutional frameworks for the management of coastal aquifers in the Mediterranean, which formed the basis for preparation of a regional report. The results of the various assessments fed into the coastal aquifer supplement to SAP MED, SAP BIO and NAPs. A web-based geo-referenced information system was developed and made available to the public as a platform for exchange of knowledge on coastal aquifers.

28

1.1.4. Spatial technology application - Cross cutting activity

46. Regional training on aquifer vulnerability mapping and remote sensing applications to groundwater management was delivered in February 2015, back-to-back with the workshop on aquifer vulnerability mapping.

1.2. Integrated coastal zone management

47. The seven activities were organized under two overarching themes:

1.2.1. Support activities in preparation of National ICZM Strategies and NAPs

48. This sub-component addressed the application of ICZM approach, tools, and techniques in demonstration areas (see below), aimed at harmonizing national institutional and legal arrangements with the ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention. The project also supported the ratification of the ICZM Protocol by 5 of the participating countries. Activities for the integration of ICZM into national policies including all 12 demonstrations were completed. Relevant national strategies were analyzed and used for development of the ‘Guidelines for the Preparation of National ICZM Strategies required by the ICZM Protocol for the Mediterranean’, which was completed in July 2012 following an expert meeting in 2011. The value of this framework document is reflected by its adoption by partner countries. These guidelines were used in the development of ICZM strategies in Algeria and Montenegro, which were approved by national authorities as well as for the Marine and Coastal Strategy in Croatia. In May 2015, the Algerian Ministry responsible for development of the ICZM strategy was split and integrated in two different ministries. As a consequence, the strategy document together with the action plan and financing measures had to be revised. Development of the National ICZM Strategy for Croatia was delayed owing to significant delay with signature of the contract and disbursement of funds, but this did not affect completion of this replication activity.49. To better integrate coastal, river basin, and aquifer management the “Integrative Methodological Framework” (IMF) was jointly drafted, tested, and finalized by GWP-Med, PAP/RAC and UNESCO-IHP. The IMF guidelines report was published in 2015 and distributed to the Counttires delegation at the 5 th

Project Steering Committee of the project 9November 2015). Among several outputs linked to regional and national capacity building, a technical report ‘An introduction to legal and technical aspects of the Mediterranean ICZM Protocol’ was produced in 2012 and served as input to a regional workshop in December 2012 bringing together over 50 participants.

1.2.2. Application of ICZM approach, tools, and techniques in demonstration areas

50. Application of the ICZM approach, tools and techniques was tested in two areas through the preparation of two ICZM Plans: the Transboundary Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Buna/Bojana Area (Albania and Montenegro) and the Coastal Plan in Reghaïa. The first plan was the practical application of the IMF and Reghaïa was a joint project with UNESCO- IHP, with inputs from SPA/RAC related to creation of an MPA as well as from the French Conservatoire du Littoral who completed a biodiversity survey in the area. Buna/Bojana was a joint project with GWP-Med and UNESCO-IHP in collaboration with national authorities towards development of an integrated management plan for this transboundary area. Delays were encountered in the Buna/Bojana demonstration due to issues related to contracting of the national coordinators and to limited capacity

29

as well as extensive gaps in data needed for the combined strategy. These issues were resolved and the national coordinators were appointed and the workplan adjusted to allow for additional data gathering.

1.3. Integrated Water Resources Management

51. This sub-component was extensively revised in 2014 to incorporate new end-of-project targets and activities. It consisted of seven activities.

1.3.1. Contribute to developing the new Strategy for Water (SWM) in the Mediterranean

52. GWP-Med provided technical and administrative support for the development of the Mediterranean (UfM) draft Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean. Completion of this Strategy was stalled due to the lingering political deadlock arising from disagreements over territorial designations and reference to the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Although the document was not approved at the UfM Ministerial on Water (2010, Barcelona), SWM’s priorities are followed up by the majority of UfM countries through national and regional actions. This activity received ongoing support from the EU through its 22 million € regional project Sustainable Water Integrated Management programme (SWIM) and through a SWIM Phase II Programme (starting in 2016). GWP-Med is the technical director of the SWIM project that builds on the draft strategy, which will contribute to sustainability.

1.3.2. Catalyse action and build capacity on national IWRM planning in 4 target countries

53. The target countries were Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Palestinian Territories. Outputs delivered included: Egypt: a sustainable financing strategy for the water supply and sanitation sector for Greater Cairo and national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure were completed; Lebanon: a national 10-year Strategic Plan on Water was reviewed and recommendations for action provided, and a national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure was completed; Tunisia: a National Water Strategy 2050 was elaborated focusing on governance and private sector participation mechanisms and support provided to a water-related article of the new Constitution; Palestinian Territories: following the request of the competent authorities, a thematic shift was agreed upon to focus on governance and financing for water services and the role of the private sector. Despite the political tensions and security concerns, a structured National Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on governance obstacles to sustainable financing of water services, including through private sector participation, was launched in November 2014 and implemented by GWP-Med. A ‘national’ report on assessment and diagnostic analysis of current private sector involvement in water supply and sanitation as well as a set of recommendations for institutional, legal and structural changes along with an action plan for their implementation were prepared.

1.3.3. Develop Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) in globally important river basin(s) and adjacent coastal area.

54. Progress was slow due to the political complexities in the region. The MTE assigned a rating to sub-component 1.3. of ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ in view of limited delivery on this activity. Progress was made in the post-MTE period and outputs were delivered including under Sub-components 1.1 and 1.2. The IMF was developed and presented at regional workshop (reported also in Sub-component 1.2). The IRBM part of the Integrated Resources Management Plan for Buna/Bojana was completed. Work in the

30

transboundary Orontes River, shared by Lebanon and Syria had to be suspended in early 2012 because of the war. Instead, a concept note was developed for an IRBM project for the Medjerda River (Algeria and Tunisia). Following a request from Lebanon, activities focused in Awali instead of the Damur River Basin and coastal area.55. Outputs from these sub-components were used to inform development of the coastal aquifer supplement to TDA-MED, which includes concrete recommendations for adoption.56. The TE rating for this component is ‘Highly Satisfactory’, reflecting successful completion of activities as well as adaptive measures taken to address challenges as they arose (e.g., related to political conflicts and instability).

Component 2. Pollution from land based activities, including Persistent Organic Pollutants: implementation of SAP MED and related NAPs.

57. Component 2 addressed some of the priorities identified in SAPMED and its NAPs for the reduction of pollution from land-based sources. It consisted of three sub-components: 2.1. Facilitation of policy and legislation reforms for pollution control, executed by MEDPOL; 2.2. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies, executed by UNIDO; and 2.3. Environmentally sound management of equipment, stocks, and wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries, implemented by MEDPOL.

2.1. Facilitation of policy and legislation reforms for pollution control

58. In revisions made to the results framework, targets were elaborated as pilot projects on industrial pollution control, management, and assessment based on NAP priorities, and executed with the Ministries of Environment and other national experts in the participating countries. Pilot projects were executed in Tunisia, Turkey, and Egypt, and a series of guidelines and national legal and policy documents were prepared incorporating the SAP-MED priorities and adopted by the countries. The various Guidelines produced by the MEDPOL pilot projects were presented and approved at the MEDPOL FP meeting in June 2015 in Malta. The MEDPOL pilots encountered some initial delays due to several factors such as the absence of a dedicated MEDPOL Task Manager at the time, issues in the countries including political situation, and the need to redefine the pilot projects. The MTE assigned a rating of ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ to Sub-component 2.1 because of limited progress in activities 2.1.7, 2.1.8, and 2.1.9, and provided detailed recommendations to address the problems that were being experienced. Remarkable progress was achieved in the post-MTE period. The four pilot projects executed under this sub-component were:

2.1.1. Phosphogypsum slurry management in Tunisia including the respective demonstration sites.

59. This activity was originally planned for Lebanon, but when this country pulled out (attributed to its involvement in a World Bank project for PCBs and changes within the Ministry of Environment, which resulted in some re-focusing of their priorities in terms of participation in projects) the activity was transferred to Tunisia. This late change in target country, exacerbated by political unrest and changes at ministerial level in Tunisia, resulted in about two years delay to this activity. The pilot project steering committee was reorganized in August 2014 and held three meetings. The main outputs were a study addressing phospohogypsum sludge management and the fertilizer industry in Tunisia and a Guide on best practices for ESM of phosphogypsum sludge. The Guide was presented at a national workshop held in Tunisia in April 2015, which was attended by 42 national stakeholders including governmental

31

organizations, industrial sector, NGOs, academics, and researchers. Five national experts went on a study tour abroad to Ardaman & Associates Corporate in Florida, from 5th - 14th April 2015.

2.1.2. Chromium and Biological oxygen demand (BOD) control of tanneries effluent in target countries, including the respective demonstration sites – pilot in Turkey

60. Guidelines for ESM of the tannery sector in the Mediterranean region and factsheets were prepared in collaboration with SCP/RAC and presented at the MEDPOL Focal Point (FP) meeting in June 2015. A regional training workshop was organized in cooperation with H2020 and SCP/RAC in Barcelona, Spain in 2015. Turkey decided to not continue to the next phase of this activity because of the busy schedule of the participating government ministries.

2.1.3. Lubricating oil recycling and regeneration in target countries, including the respective demonstration sites – pilot in Algeria

61. A National Steering Committee was established for this pilot project. An international consultant (Spanish) was subcontracted by MAP in 2010, and three reports were submitted by consultant. As reported in the 2013 PIR, the quality of the English and French version of the reports was very poor. It was agreed at the April 2012 workshop to establish an inter-sectoral working group under the direction of the Algerian MAP Focal Point to provide guidance on the continuation of the project activities and elaboration of a detailed work plan. An inventory of lube oils was produced and a feasibility analysis was completed covering economic and technical aspects of the available options related to setting up a management system in line with environmental standards and international law. The National Plan on the management of lube oils, which includes a proposal for improving the legislation and related regulatory framework, was finalized. In addition, Guidelines for ESM of Lube Oil in the Mediterranean region were prepared and presented at the MEDPOL FP meeting in June 2015.

2.1.4. Lead batteries recycling in target countries, including the respective demonstration sites – pilot in Syria

62. The pilot project on recycling of lead batteries was initiated in Syria but implementation had to be discontinued in early 2012 due to the political situation. Instead, a report on the assessment of the current status in the country was produced and used along with Basel Convention guidelines to prepare Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of lead batteries for the region by the Bratislava Regional Center of the Basel Convention. These guidelines were approved by the MEDPOL FP meeting in June 2015.

63. Other activities and outputs completed were:

2.1.5. Assessment of the magnitude of riverine inputs of nutrients into the Mediterranean Sea

64. This was the first serious attempt to estimate nutrient budget as well as scenarios for their future projections for the Mediterranean Sea. An atlas on riverine fluxes of nutrients was produced based on the assessment. A database and GIS modelling tool was developed by the Centre de Formation et de Recherches sur les Environnements Méditerranéens (University of Perpignan, France).

2.1.6. Setting Emission Limit Values in industrial effluents and EQS in all participating countries

32

65. A Dutch company (Deltares) was subcontracted by MAP in 2010 to test a model to assess the variations of Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) with Emission Limit Values (ELV) for nitrogen and mercury in the Gulf of Lion and Izmir Bay. A report was submitted in January 2012 and ELV/EQOs web-based software was developed, reviewed, presented and validated during the regional training workshop in November 2014. It covers 10 contaminants and can be easily adjusted for additional contaminants. The ELV/EQS tool is hosted on the MAP website and can be accessed by the contracting parties and the public.66. Activities 2.1.7 to 2.1.9 consisted of a number of national and regional meetings and workshops. Participants at these events included environmental inspectors, experts from different ministries, local authorities, public and private sector, NGO, MAP national FPs as well as MEDPOL and SCP/RAC, academics, researchers. Some of these workshops were conducted in corporation with other ongoing initiatives in the region (e.g., the regional workshop on ESM of Lube Oil in the Mediterranean was organized in cooperation with H2020 in July 2015 in Barcelona).

Sub-Component 2.2. Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST MED)

67. This sub-component focused on the application of UNIDO’s TEST methodology to promote the transfer and adoption of cleaner technology in industries in the participating countries, and consisted of 15 activities. MED TEST was executed by UNIDO in cooperation with the national cleaner production centres (NCPCs) of Egypt and Morocco and a consortium of technical centres in Tunisia (CETTEX, CNCC, and CTAA). Forty three enterprises (mainly small and medium enterprises) from the food, textile, metallurgical, chemical, petroleum, leather and tanning industries were selected to participate in the pilot project. UNIDO received funding of US$1 million directly from the GEF as well as 600,000 € from the Italian Government for TEST MED, and was well-prepared as it had already developed the TEST approach and was standing by to start activities. 68. This sub-component was very successful, with targets having been exceeded and all activities completed by 2012, and environmental gains and resource efficiency realized in the participating companies. A total of 765 measures for cleaner production and for energy and water saving were identified, of which 76% have been implemented by the 43 enterprises, resulting in an annual reduction of 3,238 tonnes of BOD5 and 4,535 tonnes of COD, an estimated 9.7 million m3 of water savings, and 263 GWh per year of energy savings. In the three countries, the project identified total annual savings of approximately US$17 million in energy, water, raw materials, and increased productivity corresponding to a portfolio of around US$20 million of private sector investments in improved processes and cleaner technology. These investments do not include end-of-pipe solutions, which in some companies have also been launched in order to achieve full environmental compliance with national laws. Six companies have integrated the TEST approach in their existing environmental management systems and 11 companies have undertaken actions to obtain ISO 14001 certification. National roadmaps for market uptake and upscale of TEST in each country were designed. 69. UNIDO provided training in the TEST approach to 6 national institutions and service providers and 30 local professionals as well as to the staff of the 43 demonstration companies. In addition, 6 training sessions were delivered to 16 replication companies in 2012-2013. A total of 958 person days of training were delivered to industries and other trainees. TEST MED is now being scaled up in a follow up project SWITCH-MED (implemented by UNEP and UNIDO, with EC support) (see Section on Sustainability and replication).

33

Sub-component 2.3. Environmentally Sound Management of equipment, stocks and wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries.

70. This sub-component built on priorities identified in the NAPs, the Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIP), and on existing initiatives in some Mediterranean countries. It was executed by MEDPOL and SCP/RAC, and consisted of five activities for the environmentally sound management (ESM) of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Significant delays were experienced in the delivery of this sub-component, attributed to a number of factors including the need to better define the pilot projects, changes required as a result of the political conflicts in some countries (as mentioned in the previous paragraph), change of the MEDPOL Task Manager for component 2 (this caused a delay of at least 6 months), and the lengthy tendering procedure through UNOPs Nairobi for the purchase of PCB analysers and chemicals (caused a delay of about 8 months). As a result implementation was seriously affected and the work plans had to be reviewed and adapted three times by MEDPOL in consultation with SCP/RAC, and approved at three successive steering committee meetings. At the national level, the momentum that was created after the first mission of the international consultant and MEDPOL was lost because of these long delays. In the future, UNOPS should simplify and expedite the tendering process to avoid delays in execution of project activities. The PCB demonstrations were substantially revised in 2012 following in-depth missions by MEDPOL personnel to the countries and discussions with national experts.71. The MTE assigned a rating of ’Unsatisfactory’ to this sub-component and made detailed recommendations to address the problems encountered including assessing what was feasible in the remaining project period and preparing a revision to the logframe that reflected these changes for PSC approval. Significant progress was made in the post-MTE period and this sub-component turned out to be ‘Highly Satisfactory’, completing the activities and delivering the expected outputs, in some cases exceeding expectations such as increase in the quantity of PCBs that was expected to be disposed of.

2.3.1. Legislative/institutional framework for implementation of ESM of PCBs

72. To strengthen legislative frameworks for implementation of ESM of PCBs support was given to all the countries to develop regulatory acts that would support the implementation of existing legislation with regard to PCBs. An ESM Guide on PCB management was developed and approved by the MEDPOL FP meeting, and PCB management handouts and fact sheets were prepared for the four participating countries. A document on legislation on PCBs By-law for control of PCBs for Turkey was also prepared.73. Training was held in Turkey, Egypt, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to support the preparation of notification files for import and export purposes. A regional meeting on ESM and combatting illegal traffic of chemicals and hazardous waste in the Mediterranean was held in 2015 in Istanbul, in cooperation with the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions secretariats.

2.3.2. Demonstration projects in 5 countries to improve the management and disposal programme of PCBs

74. The major objective of the demonstration projects was to introduce Environmentally Sound Management to all stages of the ‘life-cycle’ of electrical equipment containing or contaminated by PCBs. The activities were originally planned to be conducted in Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, but Lebanon withdrew completely from the activity, and timely delivery was not feasible in Syria and Libya because of ongoing political and armed conflicts. These three countries were subsequently replaced by Turkey and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Semi-mobile analyzers/screeners were purchased and delivered to the four participating countries. Demonstration sites for PCB sampling and analysis were identified, and

34

activities were carried out to inventory, collect, transport, and dispose of PCBs in an environmentally sound manner. Inventories were prepared in 42 utilities and other industries screening more than 300 appliances. As a result, 1,100 tonnes of PCBs were identified, of which 930 tonnes were designated for export to a company in France for proper disposal. Of this, 870 tonnes were shipped, thus contributing to the global targets on POPs elimination by 2028. In Egypt, the process faced some administrative challenges that were beyond MEDPOL’s and MAP’s control. For example, the authority in France did not grant permission for the import of PCBs from Egypt for disposal. To overcome these issues and guarantee the disposal of 950 tonnes, the contract with the disposal company was amended to ensure that the PCB coming from Egypt would be disposed at the beginning of 2016. Training was provided to the national PCB teams on collection, packaging, and shipment of PCBs, and increased technical expertise and awareness on the environmentally sound management of PCBs. 2.3.3. Raising awareness of importance of ESM of PCBs equipment

75. Awareness raising activities included development of a PCBs website (www.pcbsmed.org) for use by the participating countries, and production of 5 videos on PCBs, which are available on the website http://pcbsmed.org/videos/. The videos were used in awareness and training workshops. A “Compilation-toolkit of PCB applications for owners and public officials” was prepared and PCBs brochures were developed and translated into local languages for training, awareness-raising, and dissemination purposes. All training materials have been placed on the PCBs website.

2.3.4. Technical capacity building for ESM of PCBs equipment

76. Over 300 individuals from the participating countries received theoretical and practical training on environmentally sound management of PCBs through a number of workshops conducted in the countries. Training was provided by MEDPOL and SCP/RAC. A few planned workshops were cancelled due to lack of interest by one of the countries in additional PCB training and shortfalls in funding. Two planned PCB management and awareness training events were cancelled in Albania and Bosnia & Herzegovina due to lack of funding from SCP/RAC. Despite this, the project has succeeded in strengthening capacity for ESM of PCBs in the countries. See also activity 2.3.5.

2.3.5. Building national capacity to implement PCBs phase-out and disposal programmes

77. A short guide was developed for preliminary identification of PCBs to help countries in the identification of PCBs, and 4 PCB analyzers were purchased by the project. Training was provided to over 150 national experts from the 4 participating countries on use of the analyzers and preparation of the inventory of PCBs. Inventories were carried out in Turkey, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Egypt. No inventory was carried out in Albania. An international company was contracted to collect and dispose of the PCBs. Capacity for PCBs management was also strengthened through activity 2.3.4.

Component 3. Conservation of biological diversity: implementation of SAP BIO and related NAPs

78. This component aimed to support implementation of SAP-BIO and NAPs of the Barcelona Convention’s Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD Protocol), through the implementation of an ecologically-coherent network of marine protected areas (MPA). Targeted capacity-building and enabling activities focused on both national and sub-regional levels to improve capacity for policy development and its subsequent transfer into management for biodiversity conservation. Component 3 comprised two sub-components: 3.1. The

35

conservation of coastal and marine diversity through development of a Mediterranean MPA Network, implemented by RAC/SPA and WWF-MedPO; and 3.2. Sustainable use of fisheries resources through ecosystem-based management approaches, implemented by FAO.

Sub-component 3.1. The conservation of coastal and marine diversity through development of a Mediterranean MPA Network

79. Sub-Component 3.1 was implemented in all 12 countries through two complementary projects, the ‘MedMPAnet’ project led by RAC/SPA and the ‘MedPAN South’ (and later ‘SEA-Med’) project led by WWF-MedPO. ‘MedMPAnet’ was financed by the EC, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), and FFEM, while ‘MedPAN South’ was financed by the EC (as a joint project with SPA/RAC), the MAVA Foundation, and FFEM. 80. Revisions were made to end-of-project targets in the results framework and included additional targets for new EC funded activities and increase in the number of specific outputs (MPA business plans, new MPAs in process of declaration, stakeholder involvement plans). This sub-component consisted of 21 activities clustered under four result areas. Although WWF-MedPO completed activities related to the improved management of MPAs by June 2013, all the activities planned for the period July 2013- June 2014 were delayed due to the uncertainty about the disbursement of funds committed by the EC. This issue, which also partially affected the activities of SPA/RAC, was resolved at the end of May 2014 allowing both organizations to restart and reschedule the implementation of their activities. Disbursement of funds from AECID to SPA/RAC was also delayed due to delay in signature of the legal agreement between AECID and UNEP. 81. The MTE rating was ‘Satisfactory’ for MedPAN South, which delivered substantially on its intended outputs, and ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ for MedMPAnet, in view of delays in delivery of field activities. By the end of the project, however, all planned activities were satisfactorily completed.

3.1.1. Establishment of coordination mechanisms for regional MPA management

82. The five activities were primarily concerned with project coordination and communications, including establishment of the project coordination units in WWF-MedPO (in March 2009) and SPA/RAC (in April 2010), and organization of inception and mid-term workshops involving the SAP-BIO Advisory Committee and National Correspondents. A SAP-BIO National Correspondents Meeting took place in June 2010 in Istanbul, which also served as the Inception Meeting of this sub-component. The Advisory Committee and National Correspondents met regularly to provide guidance to the sub-projects. A communications officer was recruited and became fully operative from January 2010 and a communication strategy was finalized and a range of communication material produced by both SPA/RAC and WWF-MedPO (project fact-sheet, videos, brochures, e-newsletters, MPA postcards, oral presentations, etc.). MPA-related activities and events were also publicized through social media. Each partner established dedicated websites for the sub-projects (http://mediterranean.panda.org/about/marine/marine_protected_area/the_medpan_south_project/; and http://medmpanet.rac-spa.org/index.php?lang=enhttp).

3.1.2. Identification and planning of new MPAs to extend the regional network and enhance its ecological representativeness

83. This consisted of 11 activities (one each in the 10 countries and elaboration of MPA creation guidelines and teaching packages). Five demonstration projects for MPA creation were implemented to showcase solutions to some of the main problems affecting MPAs in the southern and eastern

36

Mediterranean. The main outputs were MPA management plans and designation of new MPAs in the participating countries. Four MPA management plans were completed by SPA/RAC and approved by the respective national authorities for Kuriat Islands (Tunisia), Porto Palermo Bay (Albania), Réghaia marine area (Algeria), and Cap des Trois Fourches (Morocco). These were declared as new MPAs by national authorities. WWF-MedPO completed new comprehensive management plans for 7 MPAs, which were approved by national authorities in Algeria (Taza National Park), Croatia (Brijuni National Park, Kornati National Park, Lastovo Islands Nature Park, and Telašćica Nature Park), Tunisia (Cap Negro-Cap Serrat), and Turkey (Kas-Kekova). Activities scheduled for 2014 in Egypt and Libya were canceled due to security concerns. Training scheduled for Libya was shifted to Tunisia, with participation by Libyan personnel. The demonstration activities in Boznia &Herzegovina were also cancelled.84. To support new MPAs, a series of oceanographic surveys, ecological studies, socio-economic assessments, and analysis of legal, institutional, and partnership frameworks were completed and reports produced (available on the partners’ websites). In addition, habitat maps were completed and standardised monitoring plans implemented in Algeria, Croatia, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey. Other important outputs included a series of guidelines for MPA creation for cetaceans and for marine turtles and for management and monitoring of threatened populations of marine and coastal bird species; tools for stakeholder participation, fisheries management, MPA management effectiveness monitoring, and integrating climate change issues in Mediterranean MPAs; teaching packages.

3.1.3 Improved MPA management

85. Five new WWF-MedPO activities were added in the revised results framework: Capacity building program; Regional communications activities; and demonstration projects in Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria. Capacity building activities under Activity 3.1.3 were jointly delivered by WWF-MedPO and SPA/RAC. An assessment was conducted to identify priority capacity building needs of MPA practitioners in the project countries, and an innovative capacity building programme was designed. The National Marine Sanctuary International Program of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) supported WWF-MedPO in the design, planning and implementation of the programme. It has contributed to building the capacity of more than 300 MPA practitioners from the 11 countries. Some respondents felt that the training was too ‘Americanized’ while persons interviewed in Croatia felt that the use of Mediterranean case studies was very effective. An important achievement was the launch by WWF-MedPO of a mentor programme as a “training of trainers” programme for 12 officials appointed by relevant authorities. This has created a professional network of trainers in the region and will help to ensure the sustainability of the capacity building programme. An MPA Capacity Building Web Portal was created to service all training activities in the region (URL). The portal hosts interactive learning and networking tools, and is the first capacity building portal for MPA management in the world.86. Over 40 ‘implementation agreements’ were signed for specific projects developed by participants for local interventions in MPAs, with technical assistance provided by WWF-MedPO and SPA/RAC. Through these agreements, more than 100 people (MPA managers and key stakeholders - mainly fishermen and diving clubs) learnt from first-hand experience and best practices in more developed MPAs through a system of South-North and South-South exchanges. SPA/RAC also provided support to MedPAN in organizing its annual experience-exchange workshops for Mediterranean MPA managers.

3.1.4. Ensuring financial sustainability of regional and national MPA networks

87. SPA/RAC and WWF-MEDPO implemented four demonstration projects and delivered a number of outputs through a participatory process to support financial sustainability of MPAs, including financial analysis for the establishment of new MPAs, a regional study on financial needs of Mediterranean MPAs,

37

a guide for MPA financing in the Mediterranean (elaborated in collaboration with MedPAN), a regional assessment for a trust fund to support MPAs (MedPAN), and 3 business plans for the MPAs of Porto Palermo Bay (Albania), Réghaia (Algeria), and Cap des Trois Fourches (Morocco). The demonstration project at the Cap Negro-Cap Serrat MPA (Tunisia) resulted in the establishment and staffing of a management body, identification of sustainable financial mechanisms, and development of a business plan for this MPA. The pilot project in Croatia assisted managers of five MPAs in developing their management and business plans, which were submitted for review to the State Institute for Nature Protection. In addition, training on financial management, business planning, and sustainable financing for MPAs was conducted for MPA practitioners in the countries.

3.2 Promotion of the sustainable use of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean through the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)

88. This sub-component consisted of eight activities under three overarching themes, and was executed by FAO’s Marine and Inland Fisheries Service under the auspices of the GFCM and in collaboration with four of FAO’s sub-regional EAF programmes for the Mediterranean (COPEMED II, EastMed, MedSudMed, and AdriaMed) that provide a long term framework for FAO engagement in these areas. Several of the log frame indicators were revised to make them clearer and more realistic and a new end-of-project target was added related to increased awareness of fishers and vessel owners associations on the bycatch issue. The MTE rating on this sub-component was ’Moderately Unsatisfactory’ in view of the low overall level of delivery at the mid-term stage. Activities were delayed due to administrative issues, challenges with engaging fisheries stakeholders in participating countries, and the Arab Spring among other issues.

3.2.1. Application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at regional and sub-regional levels (Croatia, Montenegro, Tunisia, Turkey)

89. This thematic area was concerned with capacity building for the application of the EAF approach in the participating countries. Training courses in EAF were held for staff of the main fisheries institutions in Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro, and Tunisia. The staff of the main fisheries management and research institutions identified the main needs and priorities for mainstreaming EAF into fisheries management and research during workshops convened by the project. For Turkey, activities were facilitated through the University of Izmir and EastMed due to unavailability of this country’s fisheries management institution and the decentralized nature of fisheries research advice (usually contracted to universities). Capacity building efforts also included development of fisheries management plans consistent with EAF. A total of 66 fisheries managers and researchers from Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Egypt, Italy, Lebanon, Montenegro, Palestinian Territories, Tunisia, and Turkey were trained. This training also raised awareness and interest on the application of EAF within the national fisheries institutions, as demonstrated, for example, by several requests to FAO for support in setting up specific fishery management plans compliant with the EAF. An in-depth review of the legal and administration systems of fisheries management in Croatia, Montenegro, Tunisia, and Turkey in relation to EAF principles and requirements was carried out and proposals made for improvements to these systems.

3.2.2. Addressing bycatch of regionally important species at a fleet level (Tunisia and Morocco)

90. Activities in Morocco and Turkey were initiated in 2012 after initial difficulties in establishing contacts in Turkey were resolved by the project FP. The main patterns of by-catch and discards of iconic and vulnerable species associated with bottom trawling were identified for the Gulf of Gabés (Tunisia),

38

which was identified as a priority area at an expert meeting in 2011. A risk assessment to prioritise fishing-related threats to vulnerable fish and iconic vertebrate species was also completed for Morocco. Discussions with local stakeholders identified methods to reduce this bycatch, and at-sea trials were conducted (to verify). Getting agreement of the different national stakeholders in a very tense political situation with important changes in the role of the different institutions (especially in level of authority) proved to be more challenging than expected, but the difficulties were overcome.

3.2.3. Supporting fishermen participation in monitoring and management of coastal MPAs (Morocco)

91. A set of methodological tools as well as guidelines were developed for monitoring of small-scale artisanal fisheries by the fishing associations themselves, and agreed by the main stakeholders. The system was implemented in a pilot site (Badés), where about 40% of all fishing trips are monitored regularly. After extensive work with the fishers operating in the Gulf of Gabés, it was concluded that the level of reduction in bycatch achieved in a demonstration test under experimental conditions was not reflective of a real reduction in this bycatch in the commercial fishery, and that achieving this reduction depended to a large extent on the level of awareness and interest of fishers and vessel owners. Therefore, it was decided to focus more on increasing awareness and engagement, including by demonstrating the long-term benefits to the direct stakeholders. The system was extended to two other areas (Cala Iris and Tala Youssef) following demonstration of good results from Badés. The TE consultant was informed by the Morocco FP that the country plans to implement this system along its entire Mediterranean coast.92. Delays were encountered across all activities due to the challenge of overcoming fisher's mistrust within a tradition of top-down management (this was subsequently overcome), and lack of full time support from FAO, among other issues. In the 2013 PIR, the PMU and FAO were requested to agree on clear six-monthly targets for the remainder of the project duration and carry out a final work-plan and budget revision immediately after the CG meeting in Nov 2013. Furthermore, FAO was asked to secure additional capacity for the remainder of the project as a priority. In the final PIR (July- December 2015) all outcomes for this sub-component were rated between ‘Satisfactory’ and ’Highly Satisfactory’, and the TE agrees with these ratings.

Component 4. Project Co-ordination, NGO Involvement, Replication and Communication Strategies, Management and M&E

93. Component 4 consisted of 16 activities clustered under three sub-components: Sub-Component 4.1 Project Co-ordination, Management and M&E; 4.2 Information and Communication Strategies; and 4.3 Replication Strategy.

4.1. Project Co-ordination, NGO Involvement, Management and M&E

94. This sub-component includes activities related to the Regional Project coordination and management, Monitoring and Evaluation activities and the involvement of stakeholders in project activities and demonstrations. The RC was a complex project with a large number of activities, national and regional partners, and stakeholders, all of which contributed to making this project very demanding and challenging in terms of management and coordination. This was compounded by a number of issues including political conflicts in multiple participating countries and low staffing of the PMU, and withdrawal of one partner (INFO/RAC) and shifting of responsibilities to the PMU. The PMU was established in 2009 at the MAP office in Athens. The first project manager retired and the project went without a PM for about 18 months. This exacerbated the shortfall in staffing of the PMU, and MAP

39

personnel had to assist with certain activities (see section on Implementation approach and adaptive management). The Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Coordination Group (CG) were established and held a number of meetings at roughly annual intervals. These groups were instrumental in the smooth running of this complex project. Considerable effort was made to involve NGOs at the national and regional levels. An NGO involvement plan was prepared and implemented, and the project successfully engaged a wide cross section of stakeholders, although there could have been greater involvement of NGOs in execution of concrete activities (see section on Stakeholder engagement). 95. Despite several challenges encountered, the project was efficiently and effectively managed, resulting in delivery of its outputs and achievement of its outcomes and objectives. Other aspects related to 4.1 are discussed in the sections on Sustainability, Stakeholder Participation, Country Ownership and Driven-ness, Implementation Approach, Financial Planning and Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation.

4.2. Information and Communication strategies

96. The communications and replication activities were originally planned to be led by INFO/RAC, but when INFO/RAC withdrew from the project (due to reassignment by the Italian Government), this role was assumed by the PMU and MAP. Planned activities were reduced and simplified in the 2011 and 2012 project workplans since they could no longer depend on related INFO/RAC initiatives and associated co-finance. MIO-ESCDE was contracted in late 2010 to develop and implement the initial stages of a communications strategy. It also provided in-kind support to deliver a range of internal and external communications materials, including an informative bilingual (English and French) project website (www.themedpartnership.org). The website content is not up-to-date, however, and MAP should make every effort to ensure that all key information and documents are uploaded so that they are easily accessible to stakeholders. PAP/RAC recently launched a new website to showcase its results for the MedPartnership and ClimVar projects (http://pap-thecoastcentre.org/projects/). Other communication tools developed include an innovative iPad and iPhone application, a project partners’ intranet, videos, Facebook page, Twitter account, and production of the annual reports. Communications support services were interrupted in the second half of 2012 as a result of procedural issues relating to renewal of MIO-ESCDE’s contract. A joint project and MEDPOL communications officer was recruited and assumed duties in January 2013. Further details on communications activities are provided in the section on Stakeholder Participation and Public Awareness.

4.3. Replication Strategy

97. The major outputs delivered were a regional replication strategy (Mediterranean Environmental Replication Strategy – MEReS) and the development and execution of three replication projects as well as a series of experience notes that will help to facilitate replication. Three replication activities were approved by the PSC in February for project funding, and launched in June 2014:

1. Croatia: Preparation of a National ICZM Strategy as part of the Coastal and Marine Strategy facilitated by PAP/RAC;

2. Lebanon: Establishment of a shared vision among stakeholders for the management of the Darmour River basin and coastal areas and creation of conditions for development of an integrated IWRM/ICZM Plan based on experience gained with the Buna/Bojana project;

3. Ecological and socio-economic studies in view of the creation of a marine and coastal protected area in the Northeastern part of Kerkennah Islands in Tunisia.

98. Replication is also taking place through a number of other initiatives. Further details are provided in the section on Sustainability and replication.

40

99. The overall MTE rating on Component 4 (sub-components 4.2 and 4.3) was ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ reflecting good efforts to make up for the delays and shortfalls in delivery as a result of INFO/RACs withdrawal from the project. The overall MTE rating on achievement of activities and outputs was ’Moderately Satisfactory’. The TE rating on this criterion is ‘Highly Satisfactory’, reflecting completion of all activities and delivery of expected outputs despite initial delays and problems encountered.

C. EFFECTIVENESS

100. For the TE, similar outcomes from all four project components in the RC revised logframe are grouped under six overarching outcomes and used for evaluation of Effectiveness and the RoTI analysis.

1. National policy/legal/institutional reforms identified and adopted

101. Promoting harmonized policy, legal, and institutional reforms was one of the major objectives of the MedPartnership project and an important expected outcome of all the three technical project components (1-3). The project delivered several policy and technical tools and guidance documents aiming at facilitating policy update and regulatory reforms at regional and national levels. These addressed implementation ICZM and IWRM including coastal aquifer management, guidelines and legal and policy documents for control of pollution from land-based activities, regulatory frameworks for POPs, conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity by strengthening MPAs and applying the ecosystem-based management approach for the sustainable use of fisheries. An important contribution was the inputs produced for the coastal aquifer supplement to the TDA-MED. MEDPOL produced four technical guidance documents to improve the regulatory frameworks and environmental sound management for PCBs, lube oils, used lead batteries and tanneries in the Mediterranean countries.102. Some of these outputs are underpinned by studies on the existing policy, legal, and institutional frameworks to develop recommendations on reforms needed to facilitate implementation of the SAPs and NAPs in the countries (see Outputs section for further details). 103. PAP/RAC implemented several activities to support the ratification and implementation of the ICZM Protocol for the Mediterranean, and harmonizing national institutional and legal arrangements with the ICZM Protocol. Five of the participating countries have ratified the Protocol and prepared national ICZM Strategies. The NAPs have been updated in several countries.104. Several of the policy and technical tools and guidance documents were approved and adopted by relevant focal points (ministerial and MEDPOL FPs) and by the Barcelona Convention COP at its 19 th

meeting in February 2016. The project created a lot of momentum and a wave of awareness and interest among national administrations to undertake the needed reforms. For example, the TE learned that FAO has received several requests for support in setting up specific fishery management plans compliant with the EAF. In Croatia and Montenegro documents have been approved by parliament, which will ensure that the reforms will be implemented. Some of the follow on projects and initiatives (see Financial sustainability section) will also support countries in the implementation of the needed reforms. 105. While several of the countries are making good progress in assimilating the project results in national policy and planning and bringing about reforms, others are hampered by factors such as limited human and institutional capacity, financial constraints, conflicting priorities, or ongoing conflicts and political instability. These latter countries will require further support to be able to assimilate the results and implement the needed reforms.

2. Capacity building and institutional strengthening

41

106. The RC has made a substantial contribution to the critical mass of people, knowledge, and experience in the region for management of the Mediterranean LME. Strengthening regional and national institutions to implement policies and strategies that address SAPs’ and the NAPs’ priorities was a major focus of the project, and capacity building activities were strongly integrated in project implementation. While government ministries and agencies were the principal beneficiaries as parties to the Barcelona Convention, capacity building was also extended to technical experts, national professionals, service providers (TEST), private sector, NGOs, and others. Capacity building activities included targeted capacity building workshops at the regional and national levels, hands-on experience through the demonstration projects, on-the-job training, and exchange visits. In addition, increased availability of data and scientific knowledge, provision of tools and guidelines, development of teaching packages, and increased stakeholder awareness also help to strengthen capacity. Information sharing in the region has been strengthened through the development of databases and online platforms with the full set of project documentation. Existing structures such as the network of MPA managers in the Mediterranean (MedPAN) were also strengthened through the project.107. More than 30 training sessions were conducted on ICZM, IWRM, aquifer management, pollution reduction, POPs and PCB management, MPA creation and management, and EAF. Across all the project components, several hundred individuals participated in targeted capacity building exercises, for example:

An innovative capacity building programme was designed and contributed to building the capacity of more than 300 MPA practitioners from 11 countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean.

WWF-MedPO officially launched a Mentor Programme as a “training of trainers” programme for 12 officials from the 11 project countries. This was the first attempt to create a professional network of trainers in the region and to ensure the sustainability of the capacity building programme beyond the duration of the project. Through a series of targeted training workshops, mentors acquired the necessary knowledge on MPA management and built effective facilitation and communication skills.

The MED TEST sub-component targeted 6 national institutions and service providers and 30 local professionals as well as the staff of 43 demonstration companies.

Technical training workshops for managing land-based pollution attended by around 200 participants to enhance country capacities and promote the use of best practices and Environmentally Sound Management for certain sectors.

Theoretical and practical training on PCBs management provided to more than 157 local experts on audit transformers / capacitors and 169 local experts on overall PCBs Management. Semi mobile PCB analyzers were delivered to Egypt, Turkey, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Albania, and the countries now have trained national teams capable of undertaking accurate PCB inventory.

108. The impact and effectiveness of capacity strengthening is variable among the countries, and is related to factors such as the level of interest of national personnel (the respondent from one country informed the TE consultant that in some cases individuals from that country did not attend certain workshops), national priorities, weak political will, and limited human and financial resources. A good foundation was established but further capacity building is required in the countries for implementation of the SAPs and NAPs.

3. Increased scientific knowledge of the Mediterranean LME

109. The project completed a number of technical studies and national and regional assessments under multiple components on various themes. This has greatly increased scientific knowledge on the

42

environment and natural living resources of the Mediterranean LME, and constitutes a major legacy of the project. The scientific knowledge generated is presented in a large number of reports that are available on the MAP and partners’ websites and through the online bibliography developed by the project. The scientific knowledge will help to inform management interventions to reverse negative environmental trends in the LME. Individuals from the countries interviewed for the TE expressed appreciation for the knowledge generated by the MedPartnership project, although one person questioned its utility and expressed a preference for more tangible benefits. This points to the need to build capacity in the countries to use the knowledge generated to achieve concrete environmental and socio-economic benefits, which should be addressed in subsequent initiatives.

4. Stress reduction achieved

110. Stress reduction was explicitly addressed in the project design, although it is recognized that achieving stress reduction during the lifespan of the project was ambitious. However, stress reduction is already being achieved through implementation of TEST and EMS approaches in several companies in the various countries (see Outputs section):

TEST demonstration projects resulting in annual reductions in industrial waste pollution equivalent to a BOD5 reduction of 3,238 tonnes and COD reduction of 4,535 tonnes. Water savings of 9.7 million m3/yr was achieved (Sub-component 2.2).

In Turkey and Bosnia & Herzegovina, 640 tonnes and 105 tonnes, respectively, of PCBs were collected and shipped to France for disposal in an environmentally sound manner (Sub-component 2.3, Initiation of NAP/NIP implementation).

111. Stress on the marine environment will also be achieved through implementation of the various action/management plans and application of the approaches, tools, and guidelines produced by the project, for example, through ICZM and IWRM including aquifers management; IRBM; guidelines for management of lube oil, lead batteries, tanneries, and phosphogypsum sludge; MPAs; and incorporating EAF into fisheries management plans. Replication and scaling up of the various measures and actions identified by the project is necessary to bring about stress reduction that will improve environmental status on the longer term. Assessment of stress reduction and its impacts on the Mediterranean marine environment will require regular and long term monitoring. Monitoring was not addressed by the project (although monitoring at water-body level was included in the log frame, but this was clearly not feasible during the life of the project). Some sub-components conducted training on monitoring (e.g., for MPAs and fisheries), set up systems and protocols for ecological monitoring, and made provisions for monitoring through other programmes such as MEDPOL.

5. Increased knowledge of countries and donors on innovative technology to reduce pollution and increased scientific knowledge.

112. Innovative technology using UNIDO’s TEST methodology was successfully introduced through demonstration pilot projects in participating countries. As a result, 43 companies have adopted the TEST approach at their sites, 9 companies have designed a full EMS/ISO14001 system, and 6 companies have upgraded their existing EMS integrating the TEST approach. Practitioners and industry staff from a number of companies benefited from 958 person-days of training. A network of local resources was engaged in promoting the TEST approach and extending the experience gained to other industries in the region. National roadmaps for market uptake and upscale of TEST in each country have also been designed.

43

113. The UNIDO officer informed the TE consultant that as a result of the success of the TEST activities and the awareness raised, many companies are now interested in learning about this approach, and UNIDO is currently working with at least 50 service providers. TEST is being scaled up under SWITCH-MED, which is supported by the EU.

6. Improved coordination and participation of relevant stakeholders in SAPs and NAPs implementation

114. Stakeholder involvement underpinned all the project’s sub-components, and major effort was made to engage a diversity of key stakeholders in the MedPartnership RC (see Stakeholder engagement and public awareness section). Although coordination was very challenging particularly in view of the small size of the PMU, the MedPartnership project has contributed to improved coordination and participation of relevant stakeholders at the national and regional levels, including through engaging a range of existing and new partners in a concerted effort for SAP and NAP implementation. Some of the partners formalised their roles as MAP partners through agreements signed during the project’s lifespan. The project has also contributed to strengthened collaboration between MAP, the co-executing agencies, the EC, and the UfM in support of implementation of the SAPs. Further, each of the partners worked with its own regional and national stakeholders, expanding the network of stakeholders to address SAP and NAP priorities. In addition, through the demonstration projects a wide range of national stakeholders from the public and private sector as well as civil society were engaged in the project. Efforts to strengthen coordination at the national level were successful in some of the countries, but not in others (see section on Implementation Approach). 115. Throughout the project, important synergies were built with other projects and processes, and there are good prospects for sustaining these synergies. In addition, new projects and programmes including follow on (see Financial sustainability) and future projects will provide opportunities for wider stakeholder engagement, building on the experience of and the momentum created by the project.116. The MedPartnership is recognized as a unique platform for regional cooperation that brings together 11 regional and international organizations in the region and 13 Mediterranean countries as well as relevant initiatives of the EU and UfM, among others. This was quite evident at the final PSC meeting and final event held in Athens in November 2015, and in the report of the COP19 meeting. The follow-on MedProgramme being developed by MAP will help to strengthen and consolidate this role.

Review of Outcomes to Impacts

117. The likelihood of achievement of the project impact is examined using the Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) analysis. For the TE, the project long-term impact (global environmental benefit, GEB) is considered as ‘Improvement in ecological and environmental condition of the Mediterranean Sea and climate change adaptation ensures increase in ecosystem goods and services and improved socioeconomic benefits and well-being of users’. Annex 7b illustrates the causal chain towards environmental impacts for the Mediterranean Sea. A summary of the results and ratings of the ROtI are given in Annex 7c.118. The project strategies are based on four of the six cross-cutting approaches described by the process indicators at the objective level (Preparation and adoption of regional and national policy/legal/institutional reforms; strengthening of national and regional institutions; Increased scientific knowledge on the Mediterranean; and Development, training and demonstration of new tools/techniques and guidelines to address SAP priorities). Other expected outcomes (Sustainable financing opportunities established, Effective project management, Replication and communication mechanisms, and Involvement of all key stakeholders) are considered impact drivers that are important

44

in ensuring that the project results progress from its immediate outcomes to intermediate states and impacts.119. The six outcomes used in the TOC and ROtI analysis are derived from the component outcomes in the RC revised logframe. Elements related to climate variability and change impacts are also incorporated in the TOC based on the ClimVar project, recognizing that this phenomenon has a high potential to erode any gains in reversing environmental degradation and restoring ecological health as well as to compromise human well-being. Ecological and human resilience to climate change impacts will be an important requirement to achieve the long-term impact or GEB. 120. Two sets of intermediate outcomes are identified, the first based on the project strategies and key indicators at the objective level, and the scaling up and mainstreaming of the various management approaches; and the second reflecting improvement in ecosystem state as a result of stress reduction and environmental impacts associated with the long-term goal of the project. A number of drivers and assumptions are defined in the RoTI analysis (Section I).121. The overall likelihood of impact achievement was rated on a six-point scale by the MTE as ‘Moderately likely’ (DC+), while the TE rating is ‘Highly likely’ (AA). This TE rating is based on the following observations: (i). Outcome rating (A): The project’s intended outcomes were delivered, and were designed to feed into a continuing process (SAP and NAP implementation, other ongoing processes and programmes in the region at regional and national levels, existing and project-supported mechanisms and processes that will allow for continuation of different sub-components and the overall partnership initiative in support of SAP and NAP implementation), with specific allocation of responsibilities after project funding. With respect to allocation of responsibilities, MAP has been designated as the principal institution responsible for the overall coordination, implementation, and oversight of the SAPs. (ii). Rating on progress toward Intermediate States (A): The measures designed to move towards intermediate states have started and have produced results, which clearly indicate that they can progress towards the intended long term impact. Measures designed to move towards intermediate states and eventual impact are evident, for instance, achievement of stress reduction (land-based pollution, designation of MPAs, ICZM plans, EAF), and adoption of regional and national policy/legal/institutional reforms in the countries. The '+' rating reflects stress reduction resulting from interventions such as the TEST, PCB disposal, and MPA intervention during the life of the project, based on the GEF IW criteria for stress reduction.122. The MTE rating on Effectiveness was ’Moderately Satisfactory’ reflecting progress on institutional strengthening and stakeholder engagement and early results in stress reduction in two project sub-components. The TE rating on Effectiveness is ‘Highly Satisfactory’. The MedPartnership project has achieved its stated outcomes and objectives, and in some cases has exceeded its targets. It also achieved stress reduction, for example, through the TEST and PCB sub-components.

D. SUSTAINABILITY, CATALYTIC ROLE, AND REPLICATION

Sustainability

123. Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived results and impacts after the external project funding and assistance ends. Four aspects of sustainability are addressed, and cover key conditions or factors that are likely to undermine or contribute to the persistence of benefits:

Socio-political sustainability

45

124. The project document considered that risk associated with the political situation in the countries was low with the possible exception of potential territorial disputes and/or economic crises. But the project document did not foresee the recent political instability in the region, as experienced in countries affected by the Arab Spring and the ongoing conflict in Syria. This situation posed a substantial risk to the project and sustainability of its outcomes and brought about delays and the need for certain changes (See outputs section). Events related to the Arab Spring as well as more routine changes in government affected scheduling of activities in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Croatia, and led to co-executing partners pulling out of or scaling back activities in Libya and Syria. Continuing political instability or social unrest that will affect sustainability of outcomes in some of these countries. Changes in governmental structures and in national priorities also pose a risk to sustainability, although this is mitigated to some extent by countries’ ratification of the Barcelona Convention and Protocols, and their commitment to implementation of the SAPs and NAPs. 125. An important achievement that has major implications for political sustainability is the adoption of the Athens Declaration by Mediterranean ministers at the Barcelona Convention Conference of Parties held in February 2016 (COP 19). In adopting this Declaration, Ministers pledged to implement the instruments, programmes, action plans, and guidelines adopted at the COP 19 to prevent pollution from maritime transport, marine exploration, and land-based activities, protect biodiversity, manage coastal zones, and increase the resilience of the Mediterranean to the impacts of climate change. Of particular importance is the adoption of a number of thematic decisions by the COP 19, the elaboration of some of which was supported by the project; Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development 2016-2025, Regional Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production in the Mediterranean, Implementation of Updated National Action Plans (NAPs), Containing Measures and Timetables for their Implementation, Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast and Related Assessment Criteria, Roadmap for a Comprehensive Coherent Network of Well-Managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to Achieve Aichi Target 11 in the Mediterranean, and Regional Climate Change Adaptation Framework for the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Areas (the latter related to ClimVar).126. These decisions along with the Athens Declaration are crucial for the achievement of some of the objectives of the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols and by extension, for sustaining the MedPartnerhip outcomes. Adoption of the ICZM Protocol by five of the participating countries will also promote sustainability. 127. Good potential for socio-political sustainability also exists due to the high political buy-in by the countries in the project (see section on Country ownership and driven-ness). The Mediterranean countries have a long history of collaboration through the Barcelona Convention and the activities of MAP and its RACs. The Mediterranean TDA, SAP-MED, SAP-BIO, and NAPs were all developed in collaboration with countries and have been officially adopted by the contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the NAPs will be implemented beyond the life-span of the MedPartnership project. 128. Uptake of the project results into policy and legislation reforms will contribute to political sustainability. The various action plans and guidelines produced by the project have been approved or adopted by the national governments and some countries have already started to incorporate certain elements into national policies and programmes. For instance, Egypt plans to uptake project results in developing its green economy. In Montenegro the spatial plan has already been adopted by the Government, and respondents informed the TE consultant that it will be implemented even if there are ministerial changes. Croatia is integrating ICZM planning into its coastal area management plan. Croatia and Montenegro are using information in the ICZM plan developed by the project in spatial planning in the countries. However, as one Croatian interviewee explained, local interest, conflicts of interest, and

46

economic development may hamper implementation of the plan in this country and there is need to balance short term needs with long term gains.129. There are good prospects for social sustainability through the active participation of stakeholders, particularly civil society organizations, in the project activities. Stakeholder participation was an integral part of each project component. The participation of civil society organizations (with a focus on NGO networks) is a key element in achieving greater acceptance and ownership of the project and its results and increased potential for replication. 130. The overall MTE rating on this dimension was ‘Moderately Likely’, in view of the resilience of the project at regional level. Based on the above, the TE rating is ‘Likely’, reflecting good overall prospects for socio-political sustainability in most of the countries on the one hand but risks from ongoing conflicts and instability in others. As the Mediterranean LME is a shared system, conditions in bordering countries can have impacts on the entire system.

Financial resources

131. The cost of implementation of regional actions for SAP MED and SAP BIO has been estimated at US$10 billion and US$140 million, respectively. The MedPartnership project explicitly intended to address the issue of sustainable financing for the future implementation of remedial measures and included specific activities, for example, in Component 2 for sustainable financing mechanisms for pollution control activities; Component 3 on financial sustainability of regional and national MPA networks; and Component 4 to develop a sustainable financing mechanism for the long term implementation of the NAPs. 132. In parallel, the countries’ environmental agendas have been supported by regional initiatives such as the Mediterranean Technical Assistance Program (METAP), EC funded Horizon 2020 Programs, and the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). These initiatives play a key role in helping to develop national and regional capacity and channel investments towards improved management of natural resources and the environment. 133. Interest in the state of the Mediterranean environment remains high amongst the project and MAP’s existing funding partners and through wider regional initiatives such as UfM. This is demonstrated by a number of large regional and sub-regional projects and programmes that build on the momentum created by the MedPartnership and represent direct follow on financing. Many of the actors in these initiatives are MedPartnership partners. Some of these projects have been approved and are being implemented while others are in preparation. Among these projects are:

Sustainable Economic Activities in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas (SEAMed), launched by WWF-MedPO to support southern and eastern MPAs in Croatia, Albania, Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, with support from MAVA and the French GEF.

The EC has committed an additional 1.6 million € to WWF-MedPO and SPA/RAC. The project (Towards an ecologically representative and efficiently managed network of

Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas), which officially began in December 2015 with a budget of 3 million € from the EU - DG NEAR B2 Regional Programmes Neighborhood South (UNEP, MAP, SPA/RAC, WWF MedPO and MedPAN).

SWITCH-MED to scale up UNIDO’s TEST-Med activities with about US$6 million from the EC (UNEP, UNIDO, and the EC).

BlueGreen Med-Civil Society project, recently launched by UfM, which seeks to promote water and environment cooperation in civil society. With a starting budget of €3.3 million, it will be

47

initially implemented in Albania, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia during 2015-2017 in partnership with the Horizon 2020 Initiative and the United Nations Development Programme.

A GEF full sized project for the Drin Basin (total budget of US$22,500,000 of which the GEF contribution is US$4,500,000) in the area of water governance and private sector participation (GWP-Med, UNECE, UNOPS).

Implementation of Ecosystem Approach in the Adriatic Sea through Marine Spatial Planning, which is being developed by UNEP with a proposed budget of US$2 million from the GEF.

The proposed programme “MedProgramme for the Mediterranean Sea LME and its coastal areas”, which is being developed by MAP for GEF support and which represents the continuation of the MedPartnership project using a programmatic approach.

134. Of particular importance is the Mediterranean Environmental Sustainable Development Programme (Sustainable Med), which is a World Bank initiative supported by the GEF (this replaced the Investment Fund). Sustainable Med was approved by the GEF Council in June 2009 and has an overall grant of US$50 million with approximately US$700 million in co-financing from beneficiary countries, World Bank loans, and funding from bilaterals and regional Banks (EIB, AfDB)3. The objective of Sustainable Med is to enhance and accelerate the implementation of transboundary pollution reduction, improved water resources management, and biodiversity conservation in priority hotspots and sensitive areas of selected Mediterranean countries that would help achieve the SAP MED and SAP BIO targets and assist countries to meet their obligations towards the ICZM Protocol. Its portfolio includes national level investment projects to improve water resources management and coastal zone management in the region. Sustainable MED also aims to leverage additional investments towards priority hot spots in the Mediterranean.135. At the national level, countries are also supporting follow on activities from national budgets, for example, Montenegro has allocated €70,000 for implementation of part of the ICZM Strategy. The private sector is also playing a key role in financial sustainability. The UNIDO TEST officer informed the TE consultant that companies were adopting TEST because it demonstrated savings and increases resources efficiency and competitiveness on the regional and global markets, which is particularly important in light of changing financial circumstances. 136. This dimension was rated by the MTE as ‘Moderately Likely’. The TE rating is ‘Highly Likely’, reflecting excellent prospects for sustainable financing through the various donors with interest in the region as well as through national budgets in some of the countries.

Institutional framework

137. The Mediterranean region possesses a robust institutional foundation consisting of bodies at the local, national, and regional levels. Notable among the latter is the Mediterranean Action Plan and the Barcelona Convention, in which the MedPartnership project was fully embedded. The MAP structure provides for results and lessons from the project to be institutionalised and for results to be mainstreamed and scaled up, and the project outcomes contribute to the programme of work adopted by the Barcelona Convention COP. Of particular importance is the Draft Strategic Framework of MAP’s Integrated Six Year Programme of Work for the period 2016-2021, which was developed by the MAP Coordinating Unit with inputs from the MedPartnership project and others. The 2016-2017 Biennium Programme of Work will be guided by the 2016-2021 Mid-Term Strategy, which, along with the Biennial Programme of Work, was submitted to and adopted by the COP 19 in February 2016. The Mid-Term

3 80% of demonstration companies in the three countries (4 companies per country) corresponding to approx. 9 companies

48

Strategy will focus on supporting implementation of the SAPs and NAPs, which will help to sustain the results of the MedPartnership project.138. Another important institutional mechanism is the intergovernmental Union for the Mediterranean, which brings together 43 countries to promote dialogue and corporation in the region. One of the priority areas is water and environment under which it aims to counter threats to biodiversity and natural resources, among others.139. In addition to the legally binding framework of the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols, there are a number of other adopted regional strategies and action plans, some of which are legally binding and will facilitate translating the project outcomes into concrete actions. Some of these strategies and action plans are already being implemented in the countries and others were adopted by COP 19 in February 2016. 140. Within the Mediterranean basin there are many other established regional and international agencies operating in the environment and sustainable development arena. The MedPartnership project engaged some of these agencies in project execution, consolidating existing institutional relationships and helping to build new operational relationships between UNEP and other institutional actors such as FAO, UNIDO, WWF-MedPO, and GWP-Med. The project has helped to strengthen regional cooperation and networking among its partners as well as with other agencies. In addition, the WWF MedPAN South Project supported and strengthened MedPAN, the network of Mediterranean MPA managers. The partners are already building on the results of the project within their existing and planned programmes of work and through their existing networks and governance bodies (e.g., Horizon 2020, ECAP, Switch Med). Another vehicle for sustainability is the EU Water and Marine Strategy Framework Directives (in Croatia and EU candidate countries). Croatia has prepared a joint strategy on ICZM and EU Marine Strategy Framework Directives.141. At the national level, all the countries have ministries or agencies responsible for the environment and water resources, although changes in personnel and national priorities and other factors can jeopardize sustainability. There has been good assimilation of the project results in policy and plans, etc. in many of the countries (e.g., integration of ICZM into national policies). The TE consultant was informed by respondents in Croatia that the project outcomes were already being adopted as standard procedure in this country. National institutional structures such as IMCs have been established or strengthened by the project (e.g., IMCs established within the process of preparation of national ICZM strategies in Algeria, Croatia, and Montenegro), and most of the governments are willing to maintain these structures and/or have set up new ones. For example, in Montenegro, the National Committee for Sustainable Development and Climate Change has been extended into a National Committee for Sustainable Development, ICZM, and Climate Change, thus becoming an intragovernmental body for ICZM. Montenegro has also established an ICZM council and coordinating mechanism. For the Buna/Bojana area, a transboundary commission was established between Albania and Montenegro for management of this transboundary system and a steering committee with a political and advisory component was set up. Under SeaMed, an advisory board for MPAs was established in Croatia. This country also set up an IMC in 2012, which the project strengthened and enlarged. Egypt established an ICZM committee with representatives from different stakeholder groups. Despite advances made, the institutional structure still needs to be further strengthened in many of the countries, which the institutional reforms identified by the MedPartnership can support. 142. The MedPartnership project has also left a substantial and valuable legacy including capacity in the countries, learning and experience by MAP and its partners, and an enormous volume of knowledge, guidelines, documents, etc. But this legacy needs to be institutionalized for sustainability, which MAP and UNEP are well placed to do. MAP and UNEP should ensure that all the documents produced are easily accessible and widely disseminated including through the MAP, UNEP, and partners’ websites. Project results, lessons and experiences should also be taken up in MAP’s and UNEP’s work programmes

49

as appropriate. The project has also facilitated sharing of data and information between countries, and information systems are being set up in certain countries to share and make data available for future projects and programmes. 143. The MTE rating on this aspect of sustainability was ‘Likely’. The TE rating is ‘Highly Likely’, reflecting well-established regional institutional frameworks and mechanisms and strengthened national institutional frameworks.

Environmental sustainability

144. One of the factors that can undermine environmental sustainability is climate change and its impacts on the Mediterranean Sea environment and living resources. In the RC project document climate change was considered an important impending threat to the Mediterranean Sea basin and risk to the conservation of biological diversity and coastal zones, although this issue was not addressed directly in the proposal. The SAP BIO also identifies global warming, sea level rise, and ultraviolet radiation as among the main threats affecting Mediterranean marine and coastal biodiversity, and climate change is among the “strategic themes” of the MAP Mid-Term Strategy 2016-2021. The issue of climate variability has been taken up in the GEF ClimVar & ICZM project (Integration of climatic variability and change into national strategies to implement the ICZM Protocol in the Mediterranean), in recognition that with current projections there will be a number of climate impacts in the Mediterranean. The ICZM protocol is the first regional ICZM legal instrument that deals extensively with the issue of climate change, both at the strategic level (by requesting countries to mainstream climate change issues into national ICZM strategies and plans) and local levels (by requesting countries to take specific actions such as defining the coastal setback zone). Countries have started to incorporate climate variability and change in national ICZM plans developed under the RC, but building climate change resilience requires greater effort and resources. Also, the uncertainties about climate change and its impacts make adaptation planning difficult. 145. One of the assumptions of the Strategic Partnership log frame matrix is that benefits from stress reduction will outweigh projected increases of biodiversity loss and pollution in the basin. Implementation of the SAPs and NAPs along with other measures will greatly contribute to reversing these negative trends.146. The MTE rating on this dimension of sustainability is ‘Moderately Likely’, while the TE rating is ‘Likely’, based on actions being taken to address the major environmental threats identified. Implementation of the SAPs and NAPs will promote environmental sustainability although climate change impacts and other factors could diminish environmental gains. 147. The overall rating for sustainability is based on the lowest rated individual rating in this section. The MTE rating was ‘Moderately Likely’, while the overall TE rating for sustainability is ‘ Likely’, reflecting some risks to socio-political sustainability and from climate change impacts.

Catalytic role and replication

148. The MedPartnership project was specifically intended to play a catalytic role in the implementation of SAP MED and SAP BIO. The project has catalyzed regional action by bringing together existing and new technical partners to work in a concerted manner on SAP implementation, which has helped to consolidate the role of the SAPs as a framework for action. A large number of project activities were oriented towards providing incentives or opportunities to catalyse change. These included strengthening the evidence base for integrated water resources and integrated coastal zone management (Component 1), building the financial case for resource efficiency and pollution reduction

50

through the TEST projects (Component 2), creating champions for MPA management including through the mentors and small grants programmes (Component 3), and demonstrating concrete benefits from management interventions through the many pilot projects. Activities related to sustainable financing and replication were expected to contribute to consolidation of these results in and extension of the approaches beyond the participating countries. The project has also contributed to a wide range of policy outcomes (See Effectiveness section). 149. An outstanding outcome is the high level of momentum created by the MedPartnership project in the region, which is already serving as an effective catalyst for follow-on actions and initiatives. As discussed above (sustainable financing), the project has helped to catalyse further regional actions as illustrated by several follow-on projects that are being implemented or developed with support from GEF and other donors, and which build on the results of the MedPartnership. The project has also catalyzed specific actions by the participating countries at the national level. 150. Regarding replication, promotion of replication is an important source of added value for the partnership, and demonstration projects were selected for their effectiveness and replicability. The project developed a replication strategy—the Mediterranean Environmental Replication Strategy (MEReS)—to maximize the regional transfer of successful demonstrations and pilot projects through identification and promotion of replicable practices (See section on Outputs, Component 4). Many of the project’s outputs such as tools and guidelines greatly increase the potential for replication. An important project output that will facilitate replication is a series of experience notes produced by partners. Some of these were reviewed by the TE consultant and were found to be of high quality and great potential utility to the countries and executing partners as well as to other stakeholders for replication of activities. 151. Replication is already being carried out through other regional projects and programmes, as described in the section on financial sustainability. At the national level, after a call by the project for replication proposals in February 2013, eight proposals were received, three of which were approved by the PSC in February 2014 and launched in June that year:

Replication of IWRM best practices to transfer the methodology, experience and good practices from the joint water and coastal management demonstrations in the Buna/Bojana (Albania/Montenegro) and the Reghaia (Algeria) to the Damour River in Lebanon, to provide support for the development of a joint water and coastal management plan;

Replication of ICZM best practices to support the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection of Croatia in the completion of a joint Coastal and Marine Strategy, which for the first time harmonizes obligations under the Barcelona Convention for the development of an ICZM Strategy and the EC’s Marine Strategic Framework Directive (MSFD).

Replication of the activities for the promotion of best of replicable practices for the creation of MPAs in the Mediterranean to support ecological and socio-economic/fishery studies in view of the establishment of a marine and coastal protected area in Kerkennah Islands, Tunisia.

152. In addition to these replication projects, a number of other replications are being implemented by some countries. For example, in Croatia, SUNCE (Association for Nature, Environment and Sustainable Development) was contracted to develop a management plan for another MPA using the approach developed by the project. A similar activity is being carried out in Albania by the Institute of Nature Conservation of Albania. Morocco is already replicating fisheries monitoring in other areas and plans to do this all along its Mediterranean coast. Other countries such as Bosnia & Herzegovina are interested in replication activities but are constrained by limited human and financial resources. 153. Replication and upscaling will require substantial investments in the countries, and MAP in collaboration with relevant partners should identify and develop appropriate mechanisms for leveraging additional investments. As mentioned above, MAP is preparing a follow-on MedProgramme, which is an opportunity to identify and leverage investments from the countries and bi-lateral donors for scaling up.

51

154. The MTE rating on catalytic role and replication was ’Satisfactory’, reflecting a good potential for catalytic effect and for replicability of pilot and demonstration activities. The TE rating is ‘Highly Satisfactory’, reflecting the major catalytic effect of the project that is already evident as well as efforts taken to promote replication and many actual replications already taking place at the national and regional levels.

E. EFFICIENCY

Sources of cost-effectiveness

155. The MedPartnership project represented a major collective effort to address degradation of the Mediterranean Sea environment and its natural resources. It was also very cost effective, due to a number of factors including:

Adoption of an overall strategic approach along with a regional approach incorporating a comprehensive suite of actions and investments, which was more cost-effective to demonstrate benefits than a series of individual projects.

Made use of and reinforced the roles of an existing and recognised institution (UNEP-MAP) to host the PMU. UNEP-MAP provided the project with office space, institutional support, staff time and expertise, and opportunities for integration with regional governance processes.

Engaging key partners with relevant expertise and experience in the Mediterranean region for execution of project activities and in some cases building on their completed or ongoing projects: MAP RACs (SPA/RAC, SCP/RAC, PAP/RAC), WWF-Med, GWP-Med, FAO, MedPol, UNESO-IHP, and UNIDO.

Having a single PMU, which reduced regional coordination costs as well as transaction costs for individual countries from dealing with a single project, although the implementation approach was also associated with relatively high transaction costs with dedicated staff and consultants employed by each co-executing agency and the need for two project coordination/governance bodies (the PSC and CG). These costs, however, were offset by the substantial level of cash co-finance contributions from the various co-executing partners. In addition, a higher transaction cost could translate into bigger environmental benefits. In developing future projects, appropriate mechanisms should be identified to reduce transaction costs without sacrificing the level of impact of the project.

Assumption of additional responsibilities by the PMU including managing the information dissemination, communication, and replication activities originally delegated to INFO/RAC (and also managing the CLIMVAR project, which utilised the same PSC and Coordination Group - see ClimVar TE report).

Providing opportunities for the outcomes of the ClimVar & ICZM project to be integrated into ICZM plans.

Building on a wide range of complementary projects and programmes including the EU Horizon 2020 Initiative for de-pollution of the Mediterranean; Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean (SWIM); FAO’s initiatives such as AdriaMed, CopeMed, EastMed, and MedsudMed; the EU Water Initiative under the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM); and the Mediterranean Environmental Sustainable Development Program (Sustainable MED), which replaced the Investment Fund. The project also supported and built on national initiatives in the participating countries.

Adopting a regional approach to the implementation of the SAPs and NAPs, which had several important advantages including the implementation of a number of regional plans of action to protect the coastal zone from pollution and biodiversity loss, the transfer of knowledge and

52

skills between countries, the application of best practices, the adoption of policy reforms throughout the region, and the replication of experiences to achieve regional objectives.

Design of cross-cutting activities such as use of spatial remote sensing technology to support parallel activities and provide for cost-effective monitoring under Sub-component 1.1.

Building on or adopting existing guidelines, such as those prepared by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention for PCB disposal.

Timeliness of execution

156. The MedPartnership project was approved by the GEF in April 2008 and by UNEP in August 2008. An Internal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) was signed between UNEP DGEF and MAP as the lead executing agency on 14 November 2008 and the first disbursement was made later that month. However, the Inception Report considered 1st August 2009 as the “official” start of the Inception Phase of the project, when the Project Manager took up his position and the PMU was established. This brought the expected completion date to August 2014 instead of August 2013 anticipated in the approved project document. The first MedPartnership Coordination Group meeting was held in September 2009. It was envisaged in the Project Document that the first meeting of the MedPartnership Steering Committee would also serve as the Inception Workshop, which was upheld by the project's Coordination Group. Subsequently, the Project Inception Workshop/first PSC meeting was held in February 2010 in Budva (Montenegro). The SC approved a one year no-cost extension to August 2014 at this meeting. 157. Most legal agreements with project technical partners or co-executing agencies were finalised between September and December 2009, while the agreement with FAO was signed in April 2010. Annual workplans for delivery of technical activities were often too optimistic with many activities carried forward to the following year. In the first full year of implementation (2010 PIR), some components were well underway or even ahead of schedule while others faced unforeseen delays. Some of the co-executing partners started activities promptly (notably WWF-MEDPO and UNIDO) and completed their activities within the first three years of project implementation. Activities were scaled up in the first half of 2012. The overall rate of expenditure was low even up until two years before the end of the project - as of February 2014 the average implementation status of the MedPartnership activities was 57% (see Financial management section). This was due to a wide range of factors including delays in startup, staff changes, administrative hurdles in the countries, and delay or reattribution of demonstration projects as a result of external events (e.g., Arab Spring) or decisions by participating countries (e.g., withdrawal of Lebanon from the PCBs sub-component). The PMU faced a shortfall in staffing during 2012 exacerbated by its assuming additional responsibilities, which hampered it from proactively coordinating partners and following up issues agreed by the CG. 158. Most of the activities reached 100% implementation status as at June 2015, with a few activities remaining to be completed at the time of the final PSC meeting in November 2015. 159. The mid-term evaluation of the MedPartnership project was conducted in 2013, one year after its original planned date, and just over three years into implementation of the project and two and half years after the adoption of the project Inception Report by the PSC. Based on recommendations of the MTE for a project extension of 6 to 8 months, another extension was approved in February 2014 and the date of project closure extended to December 2015. It was obvious that the initial planned duration was inadequate for a project of this scope and complexity. Some partners expressed to the TE that the extended project duration was too long and resulted in additional financial cost for personnel. 160. The overall MTE rating on cost efficiency and timeliness is ‘Moderately Satisfactory’. The TE overall rating of efficiency is ‘Moderately Satisfactory’. Although several measures increased cost-effectiveness, delays encountered and two project extensions reduced efficiency.

53

F. FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE

Preparation and readiness

161. The MedPartnership had a relatively long development phase from 2004 through a PDF phase approved in October 2005, and final GEF approval in 2008. Consultations were held with relevant partners and national stakeholders during project development, but changes in personnel during the long period between project development and start of implementation meant that some institutional memory was lost. Furthermore, changes in the political context in the region since the project was developed meant that some elements of the original project design had to be modified, which led to some delays in the execution of activities. One respondent felt that participation in the first scoping meeting should have been people who were responsible for actually executing the activities, rather than high level officials. While this is a valid suggestion, engaging with high political levels during project development is of high importance to obtain political buy-in, and opportunities must be created to engage both technical and political personnel at the appropriate stage in the process. The Project Document included a detailed description of project components prepared by each co-executing partner. Two sub-components (2.2 UNIDO on TEST and 3.1 on MPAs) were further elaborated in separate project documents, which ensured the feasibility of proposed activities as well as the partners’ readiness to launch activities when funding was disbursed. Sub-components 2.1 (industrial pollution) and 2.3 (PCBs) had some weaknesses in project design and preparedness, and were subsequently revised following a detailed evaluation and recommendations by the MTE (see Outputs section).162. The project logframe, activities and monitoring framework were revised and made more coherent during the project inception phase. All sub-components except 2.1 were updated to reflect changes in the project context since the project document was drafted. Some elements of the log frame were further revised following the MTE and revisions were approved at the 4 th PSC meeting held in Tunisia in February 2014. A number of the indicators and targets, originally developed in 2006 and revised in the Inception Report, were adjusted. These changes included new activities (such as those funded through the new EC agreement) and did not affect the overall objectives of the project. 163. The initial time for execution of this large and complex project was clearly underestimated, resulting in the need for a no-cost extension to the end of 2015 (although one co-executing partner felt that the project was too long, resulting in high personnel costs). The project was slow to get off the ground due to the extended period required for development of the Internal Cooperation Agreement (ICA) between UNEP and UNEP-MAP and time required for recruitment of personnel. Several partners experienced their own delays in start-up once partnership agreements were signed, and expenditure on subcontracts to the end of 2010 varied between 10-15% of GEF funds. Partners such as UNIDO and WWF-MedPO were well prepared to begin activities once the project was approved and completed their activities well in advance of the scheduled end of the project. 164. The TE rating on preparation and readiness is ‘Moderately Satisfactory’, which is the same as that of the MTE (this cannot be changed as preparation and readiness pertains to the beginning of the project).

Project implementation and management

Project Management Unit and support from MAP

165. Both the project document and inception report presented a comprehensive description of the institutional arrangements for project implementation and execution, including the agencies and

54

governance structures and their respective roles. This was largely adopted during implementation. The PMU was hosted by MAP as the executing agency for the GEF project. It also managed EC and AECID funds for Component 3.1. MAP was and continues to be also directly responsible for the supervision and delivery of MEDPOL. The PMU was established in August 2009 with three staff members including the Project Manager (PM). Changing circumstances during the project lifespan required continuous adaptive management by the PMU and MAP. The PM retired at the end of 2011 (following which there was a period of 18 months without a project manager), while the project Administrative Assistant moved to a permanent MAP role in mid-2012. These changes placed additional pressure on the PMU and resulted in some delays in work flow and reduced support for country programmes and limited the ability of the PMU to proactively coordinate the partners. Added to the existing pressures was the management of the ClimVar project, for which the PMU also assumed responsibility in 2014. In the 2012 PIR, the TM noted that significant delay in management of project staffing had left the project understaffed for a significant period, posing a substantial risk to the project, while this risk was considered medium in the 2013 PIR. Recognizing the risks to the project from inadequate staffing, the MTE recommended strengthening the PMU.166. Additional support from other MAP staff was necessary to compensate for the staffing shortfall. Following retirement of the PM, the MAP Deputy Coordinator provided support as officer-in-charge of the project as well as for MEDPOL. The MAP Deputy Coordinator was assisted in his task by the PMU’s Coastal and Marine Expert which handled the day to day responsibility for project management and coordination between January 2012 and August 2013 when the new PM was hired. The support of this Coastal and Marine Expert, who also helped to develop the MedPartnership project, was critical in providing continuity and direction to the project from its development to implementation, and minimizing the impacts of changes in the PMU staffing on project execution. The Information Officer assumed duties in January 2013 (50% Mediterranean Trust Fund or MTF and 50% MedPartnership funds), the new Project Manager on 4th September 2013 (GEF funds), and the Administrative Assistant at the end of September 2013 (MTF funds). 167. Despite the small size of the PMU for a project of this scope and complexity, the impressive results and success achieved attest to the efficiency and competence of the PMU staff as well as of the MAP Secretariat and the various partners. Respondents from the countries and co-executing agencies expressed deep satisfaction with the support they received from and performance of the PMU. Embedding the MedPartnership in the well-established MAP framework that has common goals regarding management of the Mediterranean LME was one of the greatest strengths of the project and provided many benefits and synergies to both. As the executing agency, MAP provided a robust institutional framework for project execution, supported day-to-day operations, provided guidance and advice (including through the PSC), increased credibility and cost-effectiveness, contributed co-finance, enhanced the project’s visibility in the region, and promoted greater country buy-in including through the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, etc. Furthermore, MAP along with its many partners, provides an effective institutional framework to replicate lessons derived by the MedPartnership and sustain the project outcomes in the region. In turn, the MedPartnership added value to MAP and enhanced conditions for implementation of MAP’s work programme, etc.168. In addition to changes in personnel, the project faced a number of other constraints and challenges during its implementation. As discussed in the Outputs section, political changes and conflicts in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya had a major impact on the project activities scheduled in these countries, and adaptive management measures were necessary. For example, planned activities in Syria and Libya were shifted to Turkey and Bosnia Herzegovina, and instead of having an MPA demonstration site in Libya as initially planned, it was agreed to develop a management strategy and regulations for the MPA. At the regional level, however, the project was resilient to these changes. Another challenge was withdrawal of INFO/RAC from the project, but the PMU assumed the responsibilities and contracted

55

MIO-ECSDE to lead the activities. Discontinuation of the Investment Fund also impacted the RC, and the PMU had to develop and support other demonstration projects under the RC.169. The MTE identified a number of other implementation challenges that were impacting progress, and expressed concerns about the delivery of certain activities and outputs within the remaining timeframe. It assigned an overall rating for the project of ‘Moderately Unsatisfactory’, and made a number of important recommendations, which the PSC approved at its 4 th meeting in 2014. Following the MTE, partners came together (through the PSC and Coordination Group) to reflect on project performance and consider the MTE recommendations. The shock of the relatively low overall MTE rating also acted as a ‘wake-up call’ to bring the project back on track. Implementation of the MTE recommendations and extension of the project to December 2015 along with other adaptive measures taken by the PMU and partners were instrumental in the successful completion of the project.

Co-executing partners

170. The project was executed by 11 partners, who were facilitated and coordinated by the PMU (paragraph 2). The project document had identified INFO/RAC as another co-executing agency but following its withdrawal due to its reassignment by the Italian Government, the activities were taken over by the PMU. There was a good balance of UN agencies, NGOs, and technical partners, who were consulted and developed their own components/sub-components during the PDF phase. Each of the partners was responsible for designing its own execution and coordination arrangements, and activities were led by highly qualified and competent experts. In addition to a number of consultants, core staff of these co-executing agencies was involved in project execution, ensuring that institutional memory was retained and increasing the prospects for replication and sustainability of project outcomes through future uptake in their own projects and programmes. This experience also helps to promote learning and to strengthen the institutional capacity of the agencies to participate in similar projects and initiatives to address environmental problems facing the Mediterranean LME. 171. A major strength of the project was the capacity of all partners to work together under the MAP umbrella. Further, the partnership arrangement also ensured strong synergies with other ongoing regional initiatives, such as the Horizon 2020 Initiative to de-pollute the Mediterranean, the Integrated European Maritime Policy, and the Sustainable Med, etc. This has further strengthened project foundations, broadened the project’s reach, and allowed the teams to respond to changing circumstances and opportunities.172. Respondents from the countries expressed that the technical support from the co-executing partners was excellent, and were highly appreciative. In some instances, however, communication between the co-executing agencies and national teams could have been better. For example, in one country the co-executing agency bypassed the FP and went directly to the consultant, which led to some tensions between the FP and co-executing partner. Further, the FP in this country was not informed that the co-executing agency’s project coordinator had changed. While these situations created some tensions, they did not appear to have any significant impact on delivery of outputs, but could potentially affect country ownership. 173. Performance of partners was variably affected by different factors including level of preparedness at the time project funding was received, inadequate demonstration project definition, delays in recruitment, changes in staffing, delays in issuing their contracts and disbursement of funds from the PMU, and challenges at the national level including political instability and conflicts in some of the countries. MEDPOL experienced major reduction in staffing (as a result of departure of personnel and reduction in MTF cash co-finance, which prevented hiring of additional staff) to only one Programme Officer, who almost single-handedly managed the substantial work load for an extended period of time.

56

Some partners (e.g., UNIDO, UNESCO-IHP, WWF-MedPO) were ready to begin activities soon after implementation began.174. In general there was limited integration between components and sub-components, due to a number of factors including different thematic and technical focus and schedule of activities of each component and sub-component. Two sub-components where greater collaboration would have been beneficial were the MPA and the fisheries sub-components, as MPAs are an effective fisheries management tool including for EAF. Greater cooperation and coordination among the component partners could have been beneficial in terms of sharing experiences and expertise, increasing cost-effectiveness, and in building longer term collaboration among them for sustaining project outcomes. In developing future projects with multiple components, more effort should be made to ensure greater integration and collaboration between components as appropriate, to strengthen synergies and add value to project outcomes.

Coordination and governance structures

175. Three mechanisms for coordination and governance of the MedPartnership were envisaged in the project document: the Steering Committee (SC), the Coordination Group (CG), and Inter-agency meetings. The SC had overall responsibility for project oversight and was the project’s main policy body. Its membership comprised representatives of the participating countries, the co-executing agencies, the UNEP DEPI Task Manager, and major co-financing partners such as the EC. Five PSC meetings were held during the course of the project. The committee held its first meeting in March 2010, which also served as the project inception meeting, and thereafter held subsequent meetings at roughly 12 month intervals. 176. The PSC was very engaged and provided valuable strategic guidance to the PMU. At each annual meeting the PSC reviewed and approved the annual workplan and revised budget for the following year, and also reviewed and provided feedback on the Project Implementation Reviews (PIR) as well as a number of other documents including the annual technical report and strategy papers. The PSC approved the MTE report at its 4th meeting and instructed the PMU to implement the MTE recommendations, and agreed to extend the project to 31 December 2015. The 5 th and final PSC meeting was held in November 2015 in Athens. It doubled as a final “event” to showcase the results and lessons learned of the MedPartnership and ClimVar projects. More than 200 participants represented a wide cross-section of stakeholders and included high political officials, co-executing agencies, and representatives of other regional initiatives and different institutions active in the Mediterranean. Participants expressed great satisfaction with the project and there was an overwhelming call for continuation of activities. There was consensus among participants that the project had achieved its objectives and established a very strong foundation for sustainable management of the Mediterranean. UNEP MAP and the PMU are highly commended by the TE for the excellent organization and successful conduct of this meeting and event. 177. The purpose of the CG was to ensure effective coordination and synergy between the Regional Component and Investment Fund. Membership was limited to a sub-set of the project partners, the GEF Secretariat, and UNEP DGEF (now UNEP DEPI). Separate provision was made in the project document for interagency meetings involving all the co-executing partners. In practice, however, these meetings were merged with the CG meetings, allowing for a more equal participation amongst the co-executing agencies and generating cost savings. Seven CG meetings were held on a roughly annual basis. The meetings also served as preparatory meetings for the PSC meetings. Participants considered the balance of meetings to be appropriate, and that a twice yearly meeting was justified in view of the complexity of the project. The CG played a crucial role in identifying issues affecting implementation and solutions and in accelerating implementation especially in the last two years of the project.

57

Coordination at the national level

178. Appointment of a project focal point (FP) and establishment of IMCs in each country as well as Strategic Partnership Country Support Programmes were envisaged in the project document. Selection and appointment of the FPs was the responsibility of the countries, seven of which assigned project FPs while the MAP and /or GEF FPs assumed this responsibility in the other countries. The project offered $15,000 to each country to support the coordination mechanism but all except Croatia and Montenegro refused this offer because of the uncertainty if the funds would be made available by the ministry for this intended purpose. 179. ICZM IMCs were established and worked well in Croatia, Montenegro, Tunisia, and Algeria. Other national structures included inter-sectoral steering committees for MPAs, which were established at national or local level in Algeria, Croatia, Tunisia, and Turkey, a project steering committee in Croatia, and a management committee for the transboundary Buna/Bojana project with experts from the two countries. 180. Coordination was among and within project sub-components was particularly challenging due to the multiple activities and wide range of national stakeholders involved. Many of the partners worked with their own networks of focal points or experts and thematically relevant stakeholder groups and only UNESCO-IHP and PAP/RAC appear to have systematically involved the project (or MAP) focal points in activities such as recruitment of national consultants. 181. The MTE made recommendations regarding national coordination and the IMCs. Subsequently, the PSC approved a number of actions to be taken between December 2013 and March 2014 to improve coordination at the national level, including signing of agreements with all countries for inter-ministerial coordination by mid-2014 or reallocation of funds to other activities where agreements were not signed by the deadline. 182. Communication and information flow among national stakeholders and with the co-executing partners could have been better in some countries. Some respondents indicated that they only learned about project activities at the PSC meetings and from the annual reports, rather than through in-country interaction with the co-executing agency. One of the roles of the FPs was to help in the selection of national consultants, but this was not always the case. It is important that lines of communication are agreed from the start and adhered to throughout project implementation. Poor communication and collaboration was also experienced between national agencies within countries (e.g., between different government ministries) and resulted in delays, for example, in the fisheries sub-component, but this changed in the latter part of the project duration. Based on responses during TE interviews, it was evident that some project participants in the countries had limited knowledge about what the project had accomplished and in some cases about the main institutions involved at the national level. Communication improved in the post-MTE period, however. 183. The many activities conducted in some countries meant that these countries had to assume a lot of responsibilities, but with limited resources. Local consultants were engaged for project activities, and in most cases performed well. The quality of coordination at the national level was variable among the countries, and was affected by a number of factors including the presence of multiple stakeholders and co-executing agencies, the level of commitment and interest by the FPs, changes in FPs and government officials during the course of the project, limited human resources and technical capacity, institutional weakness, limited interaction between the water and environment ministries within country, changes in national government, different FPs for the project, MAP, GEF, and the RACs, political conflicts, high level of formality and bureaucracy in countries, strong tradition of top-down hierarchical decision-making, national elections during the last quarter of 2014 and first semester of 2015, and the complex political scenario and internal political issues. For example, in one partner country the Ministry of Fisheries FP did not want to be in a subordinate position to the project FP who was from the Environment Ministry,

58

and an expert from a national university was engaged by FAO to help facilitate the activities. Because of the inherent political sensitivity of groundwater issues, certain countries were not very willing to contribute to the aquifers component, particularly as this dealt with transboundary aquifers. The UNESCO-IHP experts informed the TE that national authorities did not want to validate the aquifer reports even though they were prepared by experts whom the authorities themselves had selected.184. There was considerable difference among countries with respect to their cultural background, capacity, human resources, institutional frameworks, priorities, and needs etc. (especially between North African countries and the Balkan countries) and it was clear that ‘one cap did not fit all’. To address this, UNESCO-IHP, for example, used different approaches in the Middle Eastern and North Africa countries. These issues limited the extent to which the ‘weaker’ countries were able to contribute to (e.g., co-finance) as well as benefit from the project including assimilation of results in national policy and planning. These differences must be considered in developing future projects, and activities may need to be tailored according to the specific needs and circumstances in the countries. Further, countries must be provided with adequate financial and other resources, and their capacity adequately strengthened to enable them to effectively execute the activities and to be able to utilize the results in national policy and planning processes. In addition, countries need support for replication and upscaling of lessons and best practices, and in this regard, development of an investment programme will be critical. 185. Having a competent national coordinator and strong national teams and institutional frameworks as well as the existence of ongoing national projects and programmes with which the project activities can align were key to successful execution of activities at the national level and increased the potential for uptake and sustainability of project results. This was evident, for example, in Croatia and Montenegro. 186. The MTE rating on implementation approach was ’Moderately Satisfactory’. The TE rating on project implementation and management is ‘Satisfactory’, and reflects generally good implementation approach and adaptive management at the regional level in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, but some weaknesses at the national level.

Stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships

187. Stakeholder participation is an inherent part of the structure of MAP and the Barcelona Convention, where all countries (represented by the MAP focal point) form the contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention. Within each country MAP and its RACs have designated focal points that are responsible for the co-ordination of specific actions. In addition, about 100 NGOs and IGOs, termed “partners” are participants to the meetings of the Barcelona Convention. Prior to the PDF-B phase of the project, stakeholders participated in the formulation of the TDA-MED, SAP-MED, SAP-BIO, and countries NAPs, on which the project activities were based and which have been designed to involve all key stakeholders on a number of levels, from implementation, knowledge transfer, dissemination, and replication. 188. It was recognized by co-executing partners that stakeholder engagement was just as important as technical activities. Directly involving stakeholders in execution of project activities and demonstration projects help to strengthen capacity through learning by doing, increase ownership and buy-in for the project, and promotes acceptance of environmental management interventions and regulations, thereby encouraging necessary changes in stakeholder behavior to reverse negative environmental trends on the longer term. 189. The project showed exemplary involvement of stakeholders at all levels. A stakeholder engagement plan and an NGO engagement plan were developed by the MedPartnership, and stakeholder participation was designed as an integral part of each component. Among the key

59

stakeholders involved in the MedPartnership activities were intergovernmental bodies, various line ministries, members of parliaments, the private sector, research and other institutions, academia, local and regional (sub-national) authorities, NGOs, journalists, experts, consultants, and local communities. At the regional level, the project engaged a cross-section of UN agencies, specialist centres, NGOs, and development bodies in project execution. 190. Sub-component 4.1 (Project Coordination, Management, and M&E) specifically included activities related to the involvement of stakeholders in project activities and demonstrations. Sub-component 3.1 (MPAs), which included participation of all key regional and national stakeholders in MPA creation process as an outcome indicator, and prepared stakeholder involvement plans for new MPAs designated in Albania, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. In addition, this sub-component carried out activities specifically aimed at building capacity to enhance stakeholder involvement in SAP implementation, which included organization of training workshops on stakeholder engagement techniques and participatory planning processes and preparation of an experience note on “Stakeholder engagement in Marine Protected Areas planning, development and management”. There was also strong stakeholder engagement in development of national ICZM Strategies. In addition, regional as well as international stakeholders were represented in the MedPartnership Coordination Group.191. At the national level, active participation of the countries was ensured throughout project execution through mechanisms such as membership in the PSC, designation and involvement of project FPs, IMCs, overall involvement through MAP FPs and meetings, and involvement of national experts and practitioners in execution of the demonstration projects. Unfortunately, the political situation in certain countries limited stakeholder participation from the affected countries. 192. While stakeholder engagement was overall strong, in some cases there could have been greater stakeholder involvement, for example, UNESCO-IHP revealed that they could have engaged more closely with people in upstream terrestrial areas, and some respondents expressed the view that there should have been more consultation and engagement in the countries. Engagement of the private sector in specific activities was a key feature in sub-components 2.1 (Industrial pollution pilot projects – tanneries in Turkey), 2.2 (TEST methodology involving 43 SMEs), and component 3 (tourism personnel, commercial fishers, and local fishing communities). Nevertheless, some respondents expressed the view that there should have been closer involvement of the private sector, but as explained by the PM, this was not provided for in the project design. Respondents from certain countries (e.g., Algeria) were of the view that there should have been greater involvement of national scientific communities especially universities and scientific institutions in the project activities in this country.193. The project document paid particular attention to the participation of civil society organizations (with a focus on NGO networks). The Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE), a regional NGO, prepared the draft NGO involvement plan and developed and implemented a number of activities to support NGO involvement in the project activities. MIO-ESCDE developed an e-learning course on public participation and created an on-line database of Mediterranean environmental NGOs (http://www.mio-ecsde.org/ngos) to facilitate both general and targeted information dissemination (newsletters, e-circulars, news items, etc.). National NGOs were not involved in execution of specific activities on the ground, and they should have been given resources and tools for concrete activities, raising awareness, etc. But reduction of the funds originally allocated during project planning limited the scope of NGO involvement although NGO engagement was strong in the end. The project also helped to build trust and fostered collaboration between government ministry and an international NGO (WWF) in Croatia, where for the first time the Ministry worked with this NGO on a project led by the latter.194. Throughout the project, important synergies were built with other projects and processes including the GEF Small Grants Programme, the Horizon 2020 Initiative to Depollute the Mediterranean, Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean (SWIM), the Union for the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean

60

Circle of Parliamentarians for Sustainable Development (COMPSUD), the Mediterranean Circle of Journalists for Environment and Sustainable Development (COMJESD), and MEdIES (an e-network of over 5000 educators in the region).195. An impressive and important outcome of the MedPartnership LME project is the close synergy developed with the Mediterranean Regional Seas Programme. The Mediterranean became the first region to adopt an Action Plan (MAP) in 1975, just after the creation of the Regional Seas Programme in 1974. The LME approach was more recently developed, and since the 1990s GEF has been providing substantial support for LME projects in GEF-eligible regions under its International Waters portfolio. The synergy achieved between MAP and this LME project is exemplary, especially in view of the often perceived tension between RSPs and LMEs. The lessons from the MAP/MedPartnership experience will be valuable in fostering collaboration between RSPs and LMEs in other regions, and UNEP and MAP should ensure that these are widely showcased using appropriate forums and mechanisms. 196. An important group of stakeholders of the Mediterranean LME are the EU countries, which are not eligible for GEF funding. There was limited engagement of these countries in the project and they should have been more systematically involved from the beginning. This should be considered in the development of any follow up project as it would be also beneficial to the Barcelona Convention. 197. Partnerships are discussed in the preceding section on Project implementation and management.

Communication and public awareness

198. The project made considerable efforts in raising public awareness about the project at all levels including high political levels in the participating countries. Most of the stakeholders interviewed during the TE showed a high level of awareness about the project as well as the environmental issues facing the Mediterranean Sea. According to the project document, INFO/RAC was to be responsible for the project’s information and communication strategies, but this role was taken over by the PMU with some work sub-contracted to MIO-ECSDE, when INFO/RAC withdrew from the project. Recruitment of the project / MEDPOL communications officer in January 2013 greatly supported the communication activities.199. Key outreach products include a communications strategy, websites (www.themedpartnership.org, //pap-thecoastcentre.org/projects/index.html), an iPad application complemented by iPhone and flash applications, videos and documentary films (presented at several events), a Facebook page, brochures, leaflets, news bulletins (in English, French, and Arabic), four annual reports, and a regional summary report highlighting the project’s achievements. The bilingual (English and French) project website, which also has contents in Arabic, is a major communication tool for both the MedPartnership and ClimVar/ICZM projects. It is attractively designed and informative, and provides access to different types of documents and materials including background documents, technical reports, meeting reports, case studies, country fact sheets, videos, and photos. It also contains links to the websites of the co-executing partners, which include technical outputs that are not available on the main project website. Linking with partners’ websites has helped to expand the reach of the MedPartnership. As previously mentioned, the MedPartnership website contents should be updated with all key documents produced by the project. An online bibliography containing over 300 documents including technical reports, guidelines, and policy analyses was produced and is accessible through the website, although the link is not obvious and has to be accessed through the News & Events link. This important product should be given a more prominent location on the website so that it is easily accessible by users. A set of Experience Notes using a standard template was also produced, but this very valuable information resource does not appear to be available on the website and UNEP MAP is urged to ensure that it is widely disseminated.

61

200. Popular media coverage was facilitated through press releases and media events and the resulting outputs are accessible on the project website. A number of public awareness events and workshops were held during the course of project implementation. Environmental awareness is high at national level but low at the local level in some countries because the environment is not seen as a priority at this level, but this is changing. UNESCO-IHP revealed that communication within countries could have been better to give higher visibility to what they were doing.201. The project partners participated in and showcased the project at a number of events including the 6th, 7th and 8th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference held in 2011, 2013, and 2016 respectively. This has expanded the reach of the project and enhanced synergies with other projects. The final event to showcase the MedPartnership and ClimVar & ICZM projects was held on the 4 th

November 2015 in Athens, following the final PSC meeting. Participants included PSC members, co-executing partners, representatives of donor agencies, and beneficiaries from the participating countries. It was evident at this event that awareness and enthusiasm among the stakeholders present was very high. The final event was followed by a regional climate change adaptation workshop, which was organized by GWP-Med within the framework of the ClimVar & ICZM Project and the GWP Water, Climate and Development Programme, and attended by more than 80 members of parliament, IGOs, NGOs, country administrators, journalists, and private initiatives from 16 countries. The aim of the workshop was to inform participants about regional programmes and activities on climate variability and change as well as their links with water, coastal, and environment programmes, and to identify ways for more active engagement of MPs and the media. Both ClimVar and the MedPartnership projects had high visibility at this workshop (http://mio-ecsde.org/mps-journalists-and-other-med-stakeholders-discuss-climate-change-adaptation/).202. The production of material mainly in English in the region where English is not the dominant language has limited communication and restricted accessibility and utility of outputs in the countries. Several stakeholders interviewed for the TE voiced criticism about this issue. A number of key project outputs were translated into French, but availability of documents in the other languages was even more limited although some project partners (notably SPA/RAC) have made attempts to produce some reports in national languages (Arabic, Albanian, Croatian, Montenegrin). The unavailability of funds and limited timeframe might have been the main reason for limited translation of documents, and attempt should be made to translate the key documents in a timely manner even though the project has ended.203. The overall MTE rating on stakeholder engagement and public awareness was ’Moderately Satisfactory’ reflecting a good overall level of stakeholder engagement, but weaknesses in communications during the early years of the project and latter part of 2012. The TE rating is ‘Highly Satisfactory’, reflecting excellent stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships, which were hallmarks of the RC.

Country ownership and driven-ness

204. In principle, the MedPartnership project was country-driven as it aimed to support implementation of the SAP-MED, SAP-BIO, and the NAPs that were adopted by the Contracting Parties of the Barcelona Convention. The MedPartnership focused on specific targets and priority actions identified and agreed by the signatory countries to the Convention in the two SAPs and NAPs to address the transboundary environmental concerns in the Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, the NAP priorities are based on existing national sectoral development plans, which have been agreed upon by the national authorities. Therefore, the project also responded to national needs.205. A stocktaking meeting for the development of the Strategic Partnership was held in Italy in October 2004, and representatives of the Mediterranean countries expressed their full support for this

62

initiative and approved the proposed Strategic Partnership as a whole. Participating countries subsequently provided endorsement letters for the PDF-B and FSP phases of the project, and project activities were developed in consultation with the countries. 206. Ownership was promoted during project implementation by the establishment of governance structures and mechanisms within each country (FPs, IMCs, demonstration project steering committees), participation in the PSC, and direct involvement of nationals in the execution of project activities. To further increase support to participating countries and enhance country ownership, the PMU developed a Country Support Programme to strengthen the capacity of project FPs to support activities in their respective countries. In general, national stakeholders were activity engaged in and showed a high level of commitment to project activities, although there was variation among countries in the level of practical involvement. 207. A high level of ownership was also demonstrated by the endorsement and approval by FPs and in some cases by higher government structures, of various guidelines, strategies, and action plans developed by the project, and uptake of results by national authorities in relevant national policies, programmes, and initiatives. The national ICZM Strategy for Montenegro was officially adopted by the Government of Montenegro in June 2015, and was the first national legal strategic document prepared following the requirements of the ICZM Protocol. In parallel to this process, synergy was also built with MAP CAMP Montenegro, which enabled the ICZM strategy to gain strong political support and commitment. In Croatia, the Marine and Coastal Strategy developed under the MedPartnership’s MEReS was adopted by the Government and is being followed by a detailed programme of measures. A high level of ownership was also evident at the final PSC meeting and final event as well as during TE interviews with national stakeholders and country visits.208. The MTE rating on country ownership and driven-ness for the MedPartnership RC was ’Moderately Unsatisfactory’, and reflected that the project design and implementation was largely driven by the co-executing partners as well as the difficulties experienced in enabling countries to take comprehensive ownership of the project. This situation improved in the post-MTE period and the TE rating on country ownership and driven-ness is ‘Satisfactory’, reflecting a high level of country driven-ness and generally good level of ownership demonstrated by most of the participating countries.

Financial planning and management

Budgeting and project revisions

209. The GEF budget for the MedPartnership project was US$12,891,000 (excluding PDF-B funds and including US$1 million from GEF directly to UNIDO). WWF received funding from the EC and MAVA, and leveraged 3 million € from the EU for additional activities. UNIDO and FAO (GEF implementing agencies) received funds directly from GEF. Pledged co-financing, equivalent to 75% of the total cost of the project, was US$36,548,200, and consisted of $13,100,000 from the participating countries and $5,330,400 from co-executing agencies and others. A detailed project budget breakdown by project component/subcomponent and activity is included in the project document. The original budget and workplan were revised during the inception phase to reflect adjustments in activities and certain systemic problems (but the total project budget remained unchanged). The revised overall and first-year work plans and budget were approved at the 1st PSC meeting. 210. MAP managed the GEF funds as well as grants from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) and the EC for the MedPartnership, with oversight provided both by UNEP DEPI and by the PSC. A Funds Management Officer (FMO) was designated by UNEP to provide oversight on the GEF funds administration. The PMU finance officer post was vacant until November 2013 when a financial assistant was recruited. In the interim, MAP staff contributed to filling this gap,

63

but there were delays in receiving financial reports, budgets, etc. UNEP /MAP managed the funds in a clear and accountable manner, but all the project management fees went to UNEP Nairobi, which the TE consultant was informed created some problems and bottlenecks. 211. Financial planning and management was complicated owing to the many agencies involved and large number of activities as well as differences in budget and reporting formats and requirements among the co-executing agencies and donors. The MAP administrative assistant spent some time at the EC in Brussels to learn about its system and devise a way to harmonize the EC and UNEP formats. The project’s executing partners were requested annually, before the respective year’s PSC meeting, to review their project budgets and ensure that they were aligned to their work plan. Where adjustments were needed, the executing partner had to submit the requested changes with adequate justification to the PMU for revision before submission to the PSC. A revised workplan and budget for each subsequent year were presented and approved by the PSC at its annual meetings. Partners were also required to carry out annual audit (except UN agencies, which were exempted). 212. Three formal project revisions were carried out . The first revision in March 2011 formalised the 12-month no-cost extension and budget changes approved at the first PSC meeting in 2010. The second revision in December 2012 took account of budget changes approved at the second and third PSC meetings as well as adjustments that emerged following the screening by the FMO. The third focused on a budget revision in 2014 which was related to the no-cost extension of the project until December 2015, with funds shifted by both the PMU and co-executing partners in order to cover the implementation of activities and staff until the end of the project. Other major changes were related to the PMU’s response to the MTE, which was implemented after October 2013 with funds allocated to support those activities that were experiencing problems. In addition, funds were allocated to provide the PMU with a full team of staff (project manager, communication officer, and administrative assistant). SCP/RAC justifiably felt that the long duration of the project increased cost related to personnel.213. The final annual budget revision in March 2015 (total expenditures in 2014 combined with the proposed budget for 2015) showed two significant deviations:

A deviation of 17.92% ($52,855.22 over-expenditure) for the training component, related to the creation of a new budget line to support the PMU in the organization and participation in coordination meetings at national level. This over-expenditure was compensated by savings of $52,971.80 under the sub-contract component (1.95% deviation).

A deviation of 22.13% (saving of $37,544.89) for the miscellaneous component due to the optimization of the costs related to the preparation of reports, brochure, maps and publication, translations, and printing of communication material. The savings under this component were used together with savings under the equipment and premises component to compensate the over-expenditure under the project personnel component (for extension of the contract of the communication officer until the end of October to help in the preparation of the final reports, dissemination and communication strategy, final PSC meeting and final event of the project).

214. The MTE made a number of recommendations regarding financial management. Based on this, in preparation of the 4th PSC held in Tunisia oN February 2014, a number of actions were taken by the PMU and measures implemented including conduct of a comprehensive budget revision in order to accommodate the project extension and ensure adequate administrative support to the project during the remaining years of the project; an internal review by the PMU and each of the relevant co-executing agencies to identify any areas where they were likely to under-spend their GEF budgets; and approval of three-month (quarterly) expenditure targets for each project component in order to avoid under-spending of their GEF resources. Failure to meet the agreed targets would result in the PMU “clawing back” funds that could be reallocated to other activities. These and other related measures

64

implemented in 2014 and 2015 were very effective in improving financial management and keeping activities on track.

Expenditure and reporting

215. The statement of expenditure is shown in Annex 8a. Actual expenditure on GEF funds as at 21 April 2016 was US$11,696,681.85 (about 98% of the GEF allocation of US$11,891,000). Of the balance of US$194,318.15, the sum of US$189,996.47 was allocated to PMU staffing and contractual services in 2016 (for preparation of final reports and closure of the project, etc.). Disbursement of funds was done in a series of tranches and was directly linked to the submission of quarterly and half yearly expenditure reports and quarterly activity reports from the partners within one month after the end of the reporting period. Although this is standard management practice in UNEP, delays in reporting created delays in the release of funds, which affected implementation progress. MAP established systems for financial reporting, and completing the reporting templates including for co-financing was found to be challenging by the countries but not by the co-executing agencies because they were familiar with reporting on co-finance. MAP had to train individuals in financial reporting, which required a considerable amount of time and effort. Financial reporting from the countries was slow due to several factors including slow internal administrative processes and bureaucracy. 216. It was pointed out by the MAP Procurement and Meeting Services Assistant (MAP administrative assistant at the time) that because of delays in reporting and release of funds, it was often impossible to have a current and holistic view on actual expenditures, resulting in underestimation of reported expenditure. In addition, each agency had its own established procedures and formats for reporting, and considerable effort was required to align the different reporting formats, including the administrative assistant having had to spend time in Brussels to align the UNEP and EC formats. Some respondents from among the co-executing agencies and participating countries expressed to the TE consultant that the reporting requirements were very burdensome. 217. In addition to the delay in reporting and consequent delay in release of funds, delays were also caused by the switch by UNEP to a new administrative management platform (UMOJA) during project implementation. One of the impacts of the switch to UMOJA is that the expenditure reporting categories are vastly different from the previous system, being in a much more summarised form, which is not easily compatible with the extremely detailed degree of financial reporting hitherto used. The PM does not have direct access to UMOJA, which also creates bottlenecks and delays as he has to wait for feedback from the FMO. Other causes of delays were staffing issues in the PMU and delays in issuing of some partners’ contracts (in some cases partly caused by the switch to UMOJA). A delay of more than one year in the release of funds to WWF was attributed to changes in MAP’s procedures for cash disbursement. The WWF officer interviewed for the TE indicated that this ‘nearly shut them down and they almost lost staff’. Most of the other partners were not significantly affected, however, as they continued their scheduled activities using co-finance. UNESCO-IHP also experienced a 2-month delay in release of funds at the end of 2014, due to the changeover in the UNEP system, which delayed issuing of contracts and planning, etc. Component 3.1 experienced delays when disbursement of funds from AECID to SPA/RAC was delayed due to the delay in signature of the legal agreement between AECID and UNEP.218. Expenditure reports were prepared by MAP on an annual basis for presentation to the annual PSC meetings. Requirements for reporting in co-executing partners’ agreements were consistent with those of MAP, although FAO and UNESCO were required to submit only half-yearly expenditure reports and FAO was required to report only two months after the close of the reporting period. These conditions made it difficult for MAP to adhere to its own scheduling obligations. The co-executing partners

65

provided inputs to the annual reports and PIRs, and reported expenditure on a quarterly and half-yearly basis. MAP also tracked expenditure against the AECID and EC cash co-finance that it managed.

Co-finance

219. Anticipated and realized co-finance contributions as at 31 December 2015 are presented in Annex 8b. Ninety percent of the total pledged co-finance of US$38,810,578.40, equivalent to US$34,932,756, was realized. This included cash co-finance of US$16,064,641.38 in the form of grants from MAP, UN agencies (FAO, UNESCO), non-UN partners (EC, AECID, FFEM, MAVA, and Government of Italy), NGOs (GWP-Med, WWF-MedPO), SPA/RAC, and SCP/RAC. In-kind co-finance from MAP and co-executing partners was US$4,988,719.11. The private sector contributed US$154,320 in cash co-financing for the TEST component. 288. One of the main concerns of the MTE was the substantial level of risk associated with mobilising the balance of MTF co-finance through MAP, particularly cash co-finance, for sub-components 2.1, 2.1 and 4.1. Pledged cash co-finance could not be realized because of a deficit in the MTF. After negotiations with UNEP GEF, it was agreed to convert the cash co-finance to in-kind. Budget revisions approved by the PSC in May 2012 reflect a substantial reallocation of the MTF co-finance including to in-kind items that were not anticipated in the original project budget (such as provision of office space and services). The budget revision had the effect of i) substituting a substantial part of MTF cash co-finance commitments by in-kind support and ii) reducing cash and in-kind support for tangible project inputs such as staff time and direct procurement. The summary of variance presented to the 3 rd PSC meeting indicated that the MEDPOL co-finance allocation to office and staff costs rose by over US$400,000, while the budget for subcontracts was reduced by over US$650,000. Budgets for meetings and miscellaneous items were also reduced. According to figures provided by the PMU, of the US$1,877,329 grant anticipated from MAP, US$1,669,228.94 (89%) was realized, and co-finance contribution amounted to US$3,042,917.63 (143 % of that anticipated). Failure to mobilise MTF co-finance for sub-components 2.1 and 2.3 did not affect the completion of activities (thanks mainly to the MEDPOL Programme Officer who almost single-handedly took charge of the activities).220. As at 31 December 2015, realized in-kind co-finance from the participating countries amounted to US$13,652,149.80, equivalent to nearly 97% of that pledged. As mentioned above, countries experienced difficulties in estimating their respective co-finance contributions, including uncertainty about what to report as co-finance, especially in the first two years of project implementation. To address this issue, the MAP financial assistant developed a formula to estimate co-finance based on established ratio between the in-kind co-finance commitment of $14,100,000 made by countries at the project approval stage and the total GEF grant commitment of $11,891,000 (ratio of 1.186). This ratio was applied to the total annual expenditure to estimate the proportional in-kind co-finance from each of the countries. The new reporting modality and ratios on in-kind co-financing from countries was adopted at the 3rd PSC meeting.221. The overall MTE rating on financial planning and management was ’Moderately Satisfactory’. This rating reflected ‘Satisfactory’ overall performance but concerns with recruitment and allocation of MTF funding in 2012. Financial planning and management is rated by the TE as ‘Satisfactory’, although the financial planning and management was challenging because of the complexity of the project implementation arrangements and other external factors such as the migration of UNEP to the new accounting system.. The project should not be penalized for problems with the MTF as this was outside its control and due to the difficult economic situation.

66

Supervision, guidance, and technical backstopping

222. At the regional level, overall responsibility for supervision and guidance to the project was shared among the PMU, PSC, CG, UNEP (specifically the Task Manager), and FMO. In addition, each partner co-executing agency had its own structures in place (e.g., Chief Technical Advisor for UNIDO TEST MED; national focal points and technical programme officers for the RACs; Programme Officer in MedPOL). At the national level, this role was performed by the project FPs and governance structures (IMC, demonstration project steering committee). While the level of supervision and guidance provided was of high quality at the regional level, there were shortcomings in some of the participating countries related to the performance of the project FPs. Further details are provided in the sections on Implementation approach and adaptive management, and M & E. 223. The MedPartnership had a technical focus with many technical activities and outputs, delivery of which was the responsibility of the various technical co-executing partners. Technical support to the project was provided by the PMU (The PM and Coastal and Marine Expert are highly qualified and experienced in their respective technical areas of expertise. The latter was involved in the development of the project and provided valuable and continued guidance throughout the project until she moved to MEDPOL in 2015), UNEP Task Manager, and the co-executing partners in keeping with their mandates in their respective thematic areas as well as many technical consultants and technical experts engaged by MAP and the co-executing partners. There was general consensus among persons interviewed for the TE that the support provided by the PMU and co-executing partners was highly satisfactory. Important mechanisms to provide technical guidance included national and regional technical workshops, CG meetings/interagency meetings, and mid-term stocktaking meeting (merged with 4 th PSC meeting). Project outputs include a range of technical reports and documents, most of them of high quality. 224. There were two successive UNEP Task Managers who provided technical backstopping during the course of the project. In addition, the Coastal and Marine Expert fulfilled the task manager function for certain tasks during CEO endorsement and at the start of project implementation. The change in Task Manager, however, did not appear to have any negative impacts on supervision and technical backstopping of the project. The first UNEP Task Manager and FMO were reassigned to the Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems Branch of UNEP Division of Environmental Policy Implementation (DEPI) in early 2011 as a result of internal restructuring in UNEP. DEPI was also responsible for managerial oversight of MAP as the project’s executing agency, but its common responsibility for oversight of the implementing and executing roles did not present any problems. 225. There was a gap of about five months before the second Task Manager took over in January 2015. During this time, the UNEP Task Manager for the Latin America and Caribbean region assisted the PMU, minimizing any potential impacts of this gap. The Task Managers provided adequate guidance and technical backstopping throughout the project’s operational phase, and the PM expressed deep satisfaction with the support provided. In addition to participation in the CG and PSC meetings, the Task Manager reviewed the annual reports, and oversaw the MTE and preparation of the PIRs including assigning ratings in the PIRs (see M & E implementation). The Task Manager worked closely with the PMU to address issues as they arose, although the physical distance between UNEP and MAP were at times inconvenient. 226. The MTE rating on supervision and backstopping is ’Satisfactory’, reflecting good all round supervision but some shortfall in timeliness of FMO support. The TE rating on this criterion is also ‘Satisfactory’.

Monitoring and evaluation M & E

M & E Design

67

227. The RC project document includes two logical frameworks, one for the overall Strategic Partnership and another for the RC. The RC logframe and monitoring matrix were further elaborated during the project inception phase and was revised again in 2014. Following each revision, the revised log frame was presented and approved at the relevant PSC meeting. The RC logical framework provides a clear pathway from activities and outcomes to end-of-project targets and indicators for each of the four project components. Project-defined outcomes (revised results framework) are realistic and feasible, although in retrospect the timeframe and budget were clearly underestimated. Outputs are not specified, but are stated as activities to be undertaken and many of the outcomes in the RC log frame are written as outputs. The log frame has ‘SMART’ indicators for outcomes and objectives (nearly all the indicators are quantifiable and time-bound) and the end-of-project targets are appropriate and sufficient to track progress. 228. The project document also presented a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan and a description of the arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation as well as an indicative M&E work plan and budget. The M&E design consisted of the standard tools including PSC meetings, annual PIRs, annual progress reports, and financial reporting. It also makes provisions for the inception workshop and inception report and SP Co-ordination Group meetings, inter-agency (IA) meetings, mid-term stocktaking meeting, independent mid-term project evaluation and final project evaluation, and project terminal report based on inputs from the PMU and co-executing agencies. 229. The MTE rating on M&E design and arrangements is ’Moderately Satisfactory’ reflecting weaknesses in the OVIs and the initial mismatch between the project log frame and monitoring matrix. The TE rating is ‘Satisfactory’, based on improvements in the log frame and M & E plan during project implementation.

M & E Implementation

230. M & E activities were carried out as anticipated in the project document and inception report, and in accordance with UNEP and GEF procedures. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress was the responsibility of the PMU based on the log frame and annual work plans, with inputs from the co-executing agencies. The inception meeting was held in 2009 and 5 PSC meetings and 7 CG meetings were convened during the project’s lifetime. Interagency meetings were merged with the CG meetings and the mid-term stocktaking meeting was merged with the 4th PSC meeting. Annual workplans and associated budgets were prepared by the PMU with inputs from partners, and presented to the annual SC meetings. Six annual PIRs (2010-2015) and another for the period July-December 2015 were prepared by the PMU with inputs from the partners and UNEP Task Manager. The PIRs were used as a tracking tool and provided a comprehensive description of implementation progress for each activity and outcome in the reporting period, and ratings were assigned by the Task Manager to progress on activities and outcomes. One individual from MAP expressed the view that some of the PIR ratings were harsh, although they did help to bring the activities concerned back on stream. Problems encountered and sources of risk to the project were identified along with actions to address them. It was noted by the TE that the information in the PIRs was not always up to date (e.g., some activities were described as ongoing or to be completed at a date that had already passed). For sub-component 3.2, the status for outcomes at the end of the reporting period was stated in the exact wording as the end-of-project target in the PIRs, which could mask important details. Another mechanism for tracking progress was the GEF 3 International Waters Tracking Tool, which was used in the MTE. Three annual reports and a regional report for 2009-2015 were prepared, the latter for the final PSC meeting and final event in November 2015 to showcase the achievements of the MedPartnership and ClimVar projects.

68

231. The co-executing partners undertook detailed internal planning, progress tracking, reporting, and self-assessments according to their respective organisational requirements, to meet other donor requirements, or for project management purposes. Independent evaluations were undertaken by the EC for sub-component 3.1 and by FFEM for WWF-MedPO’s contribution to sub-component 3.1 (at WWF-MedPO’s request). A midterm self-evaluation was conducted in 2011 for the MedPan South project. Partners were not required to submit detailed annual progress reports but only inputs for the annual reports and PIRs. The half-yearly progress report was replaced by the mid-year contributions to the PIR, consistent with the ICA between UNEP DGEF and MAP. Based on MTE recommendations the PSC approved at its 4th meeting a revised reporting mechanism for co-executing partners consisting of quarterly reporting for both expenditure and delivery beginning in March 2014. Quarterly reporting was valuable as it helped to identify problems and develop solutions in a timely manner, and allowed the PMU to have a complete picture of progress and control on the progress made by the co-executing partners. Several TE respondents from partner agencies and participating countries felt that reporting was burdensome in terms of the time and effort required. Reporting is necessary and cannot be dispensed with, but UNEP and GEF should consider ways to simplify the process for countries and partners without losing effectiveness and transparency. 232. An independent MTE was carried out in 2011 by the UNEP Evaluation Office, three and a half years into implementation of the project and three years after the adoption of the project inception report by the PSC. The MTE assigned an overall rating to the project as ’Moderately Satisfactory’ and made a number of recommendations that were approved by the PSC and subsequently implemented. Completion of the project terminal report (required within 60 days of the end of the project) was delayed, as a result of delays by co-executing partners to submit their inputs to the PMU. 233. The MTE rating on M&E implementation was ’Moderately Satisfactory’, while the TE rating is ‘Satisfactory’.

Budgeting and funding for M&E activities

234. Budget allocations for M & E activities are described in Annex E to the project document as well as in the project Inception Report and amounted to US$550,000 (GEF) and US$74,000 (other), excluding staff time. A small sum (US$30,000) was allocated for baseline monitoring across all project components. However the amounts given in Annex E for the inception meeting, evaluation and audit differ or are absent from, the main project budget. Additional allocations include €124,000 under the EC funding for evaluations and audits for sub-component 3.1. 235. The budget in Annex E includes a provision for a mid-term and final evaluation (US$45,000 for each evaluation). The GEF umbrella budget includes a total GEF allocation of US$ 130,000 for both UNEP DGEF-conducted evaluations, split equally between years 2 and 3 of the project. The budget allowed only for limited travel to the participating countries and for face-to-face meetings with the co-executing partners during the MTE and TE. Only five countries were visited for the latter, but this was considered adequate as electronic means were used to conduct interviews and obtain information for the evaluation.236. The TE rating on budgeting and funding for M&E is ‘Satisfactory’, which is the same rating assigned by the MTE for this criterion.237. The overall MTE rating for M&E was ’Moderately Satisfactory’. The overall TE rating is ‘Satisfactory’.

69

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

238. Implementation of the MedPartnership project began in August 2009, 15 months after GEF approval, and ended on 31 December 2015 following two extensions. The Regional Component of the MedPartnership, the focus of this terminal evaluation, was a complex project involving 12 countries, multiple thematic areas (IWRM, ICZM, coastal aquifers, pollution control and management, resource efficiency, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable management of fisheries, etc.) and a large number of activities and demonstration projects. The project was executed by UNEP MAP in partnership with 10 co-executing agencies. This partnership was at the core of the RC, with MAP and the PMU providing excellent leadership and coordination of this complex execution arrangement. 239. MAP has provided a robust institutional platform for executing the project. Furthermore, MAP along with its many partners, provides an effective institutional framework to sustain the project outcomes in the region. Harnessing a number of relevant agencies in the region, collaborating with other ongoing projects and programmes in the region, and engaging a wide cross section of stakeholders helped to strengthen the MedPartnership RC. The PMU was relatively small for a project of this scope and complexity. Nevertheless, the participatory and adaptive management approaches adopted by the PMU along with competent partners has contributed to the impressive achievements and success of the RC. In this regard, MAP and the PMU along with the co-executing partners are highly commended by the TE. 240. The MedPartnership project has successfully delivered its planned outputs and outcomes to support harmonized policy, institutional, and legal reforms in the participating countries for the protection of biodiversity and pollution reduction from land-based sources, and has even surpassed some of the expected targets (e.g., TEST and PCB disposal). The results will facilitate the implementation of the SAP MED and SAP BIO and associated NAPs as well as the ICZM Protocol, which was its primary intended purpose. An important achievement with major implications for sustainability was the adoption in February 2016 by the Barcelona Convention COP of various guidelines and action plans produced by the project. Replication and upscaling of project results on the longer term will contribute to reversing marine environmental degradation trends and living marine resources depletion. The countries have advanced their ICZM and IWRM planning, and for the first time, the management of coastal aquifers has been integrated in these two approaches. In addition, the countries now have improved capacity for biodiversity protection through MPAs and more sustainable fisheries management though EAF. Through the project, stakeholders’ capacity was strengthened to address land-based pollution in a number of sectors and to increase resource efficiency in private enterprises using innovative technologies through the TEST approach. There is need, however, to further strengthen the capacity of the countries and other relevant stakeholders for implementation of the SAPs and NAPs. 241. The project has left a valuable legacy within the region and the countries, including strengthened human and institutional capacity; new knowledge; tools, guidelines, and action plans; lessons learned and experiences; increased stakeholder awareness; and strengthened partnerships. Stress reduction was also achieved through implementation of EMS and TEST approaches and PCB collection and disposal. The socio-political setting, institutional framework, and potential for leveraging additional financial resources are conducive to sustainability of the project’s outcomes. This is already evident in, for example, a number of large regional and subregional initiatives that are being planned or under implementation with donor support (including GEF and the EC) and that build on the RC results, and continuation of activities and reforms in many of the countries. MAP has also started to develop the next phase of the project as a programme (MedProgramme) with focus on leveraging investments,

70

which will help in securing larger-scale and sustained environmental impacts in a more cost-effective way.242. Delivery of the individual sub-components varied especially during the period preceding the MTE, which assigned ratings ranging from ‘Satisfactory’ to ’Unsatisfactory’ to individual sub-components. Slow delivery by some sub-components was attributed to various factors including the level of preparation; political conflicts in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria; limited capacity and coordination at the national level in certain countries; and heavy administrative and bureaucratic processes. However, adaptive management actions taken by the PMU and partners including implementation of MTE recommendations helped to put the project back on track. 243. The MTE assigned an overall rating of ’Moderately Satisfactory’ to the RC. Implementation of the MTE recommendations and extension of the project along with other specific measures taken by MAP and the co-executing partners were instrumental in changing the trajectory of the affected sub-components towards successful completion. 244. The overall terminal evaluation rating for the MedPartnership RC is ‘Highly Satisfactory’, reflecting achievement of project outputs, outcomes, and objectives, and in some cases exceeding targets, as well as creation of excellent enabling conditions for sustaining the project outcomes in the countries and the region. Table 4 presents the ratings and summary comments for each of the evaluation criteria discussed in Part III of this report.

Table 4. Summary assessment and ratings by evaluation criteria.

Highly Satisfactory (HS); Satisfactory (S); Moderately Satisfactory (MS); Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU); Unsatisfactory (U); Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). Sustainability is rated from Highly Likely (HL) down to Highly Unlikely (HU).

Criterion Summary assessment TE rating MTE ratingA. Strategic relevance The project is highly relevant to all the criteria but human

rights based approach (HRBA) and inclusion of indigenous peoples was not explicitly addressed although the project is relevant to achieving WSSD targets

S S

B. Achievement of outputs and activities

The project delivered all planned outputs and activities, some of which had to be revised during the course of the project. A few were cancelled or relocated mainly as a result of the conflicts in some countries.

HS MS

C. Effectiveness The project has achieved its stated outcomes and objectives, and in some cases has exceeded its targets. It also achieved stress reduction through the TEST and PCB sub-components.

HS MS

D. Sustainability and replication

This rating is based on the lowest rating in any of the individual categories for this criterion

L ML

Socio-political sustainability There are good prospects for socio-political sustainability in most of the countries but risks from ongoing conflicts and instability in others. As the Mediterranean LME is a shared system, conditions in bordering countries can have impacts on the entire system.

L ML

Financial resources This rating reflects excellent prospects for sustainable financing through the various donors with interest in the region as well as through national budgets in some of the countries.

HL ML

Institutional framework Well-established regional institutional frameworks and HL L

71

mechanisms and strengthened national institutional frameworks are already engaged in management of the Mediterranean.

Environmental sustainability

Implementation of the SAPs and NAPs will promote environmental sustainability although climate change impacts and others factors could diminish environmental gains.

L L

Catalytic role and replication The project has a major catalytic effect, which is already evident as are efforts to promote replication and many actual replications already taking place at the national and regional levels.

HS S

E. Efficiency Although there were several sources of cost-effectiveness, delays encountered and need for two project extensions reduced efficiency.

MS MS

F. Factors affecting performancePreparation and readiness There was limited consultation at national level leading to

some weaknesses in project definition as well as delays in launching the project after approval. The MTE rating has to be retained in the TE.

MS MS

Project implementation and management

This rating reflects overall excellent implementation approach and adaptive management at the regional level in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, but some weaknesses at the national level.

S MS

Stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships

The project was characterized by excellent stakeholder participation, cooperation, and partnerships. It closely engaged a wide range of key stakeholders at regional, national, and local levels and adopted a highly participatory approach to implementation.

HS MS

Communication and public awareness

Communication was generally good but could have been better between co-executing partners and countries, and within countries. The project succeeded in considerably raising public awareness.

S Merged with stakeholder participation

Country ownership and driven-ness

A high level of country driven-ness and generally good level of ownership was demonstrated by most of the participating countries

S MU

Financial planning and management

Satisfactory, although the financial planning and management was challenging because of the complexity of the project implementation arrangements and other factors.

S MS

Supervision, guidance and technical backstopping

Supervision, guidance and technical support including from UNEP were adequate.

S S

Monitoring and evaluation (M & E)

Based on the lowest rating for the sub-criteria. S MS

M & E design Improvements were made to the logframe and M & E plan during project implementation.

S MS

M & E Implementation M & E implementation was in accordance with UNEP and GEF procedures.

S MS

Budgeting and funding for M&E activities

Budgeting and funding for M&E activities were adequate. S S

Overall rating HS MS

72

73

B. LESSONS LEARNED

245. The following lessons derived by the TE are based on the evaluation findings and relate to the key factors (positive and negative) affecting the project’s performance and achievements, and are relevant for development of other regional projects in the GEF International Waters portfolio:

1. Embedding the MedPartnership in an established regional framework (Barcelona Convention and MAP) that has common goals regarding management of the Mediterranean LME provided many benefits and synergies to both the project and MAP. For example, in addition to facilitating project execution as the lead executing agency, MAP provided guidance and advice (including through the PSC), increased credibility and cost-effectiveness, contributed co-finance, enhanced the project’s visibility in the region, and promoted greater country buy-in including through the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention, etc. Furthermore, MAP along with its many partners, provides a robust institutional framework to replicate lessons derived by the MedPartnership and sustain the project outcomes in the region. In turn, the MedPartnership added value to MAP and enhanced conditions for implementation of MAP’s work programme. (para 165-167).

2. Engaging a range of partners for project execution in their respective areas of expertise is a necessary and effective strategy for implementation of a multi-faceted technical project covering different thematic areas across the various project components. The MedPartnership design was a complex one, with 11 sub-components spanning topics from IWRM and ICZM to pollution control and biodiversity protection to fisheries management. The project engaged a diverse mix of technical partners to lead specific activities consistent with their respective mandates and areas of expertise. This partnership arrangement was one of the project’s greatest strengths and largely responsible for successful delivery of the project. In addition, partners brought added benefits to the MedPartnership including bringing their own networks on board, mobilising additional expertise as well as co-finance, and strengthening the institutional foundation for sustainability of project outcomes. Coordination of such a partnership, however, can be challenging, and mechanisms to address this included the project Coordination Group and interagency meetings. (para. 170-171, 175).

3. Involvement of core staff of the partner agencies in project execution (and not only external consultants) ensures that institutional memory is retained and facilitates uptake of the project results in the agencies’ ongoing and planned initiatives, promoting sustainability of project results. This experience also helps to promote learning and to strengthen the institutional capacity of the agencies to participate in similar projects and initiatives, to the benefit of the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment and its dependent human communities. (para. 170).

4. National political instability and conflicts can derail regional projects, and for regions that are prone to such phenomena, project design must have sufficient flexibility and appropriate risk management strategies to ensure that the project is resilient to any adverse political circumstances and instability. Activities planned for Libya, Tunisia, and particularly Syria were affected by political instability and security concerns and some had to be cancelled or relocated to other participating countries. While this resulted in some delays, lost opportunities for, and reduced stakeholder engagement from the affected countries, etc., flexibility in the project’s workplan and willingness to adapt reduced the impact on the overall project. (para. 41, 54, 62, 70, 124).

74

5. A project design and implementation approach driven by external partners (top-down) hinder countries from taking comprehensive ownership of the project. A demand-led process in which the project can be aligned with ongoing national processes and is responsive to national needs promotes ownership and facilitates implementation, uptake of results, and sustainability of outcomes (para. 204-207).

6. ‘One size does not fit all’. There was wide disparity among the countries in terms of technical and human capacity (especially between North African countries and the Balkan countries), financial resources, institutional frameworks, priorities, and needs. This limited the extent to which the ‘weaker’ countries were able to contribute to (e.g., co-finance) as well as benefit from the project including assimilation of results in national policy and planning. These differences must be considered in developing future projects, and activities may need to be tailored according to the specific needs and circumstances in the countries. Further, countries must be provided with adequate financial and other resources, and capacity adequately strengthened to enable them to effectively carry out the tasks they are assigned for execution of activities and to be able to utilize the results in national planning processes. In addition, countries need support for replication and upscaling of lessons and best practices, and in this regard, development of an investment programme will be necessary (para. 184).

7. Engagement of stakeholders at all levels including political levels and local communities is just as important as technical activities. The MedPartnership was a very technical project, but embedded in all the components were strong stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising elements. A stakeholder engagement plan and NGO engagement plan were developed and a specific organisation (Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development) was contracted to handle stakeholder engagement, communication, and public awareness. Directly involving stakeholders in execution of project activities and demonstration projects help to strengthen capacity through learning by doing, increase ownership and buy-in for the project, and promotes acceptance of environmental management interventions and regulations, thereby encouraging necessary changes in stakeholder behaviour to reverse negative environmental trends on the longer term (para. 189-196).

8. The presence of a competent national coordinator as well as strong national project team and institutional frameworks, and linking the project’s objectives and activities with ongoing national projects and programmes are key to success at the national level and increases the potential for uptake and sustainability of project results. For example, synergy was built with MAP CAMP in Montenegro, which enabled the ICZM strategy to gain strong political support and commitment. In general, in countries where these structures were weak, the challenges to implementation are magnified and prospects for assimilation of the results in national policy and planning are lower (para. 178 - 185).

C. RECOMMENDATIONS

246. Since the project has now ended, the following recommendations look ahead to sustaining the project outcomes and the development of future projects. Several other recommendations are included throughout the report.

75

1. The MedPartnership project has established a strong foundation for addressing the priority transboundary issues facing the Mediterranean LME, but replication and upscaling of project results throughout the region are necessary in order to achieve long-term impacts. This will require substantial investments, and MAP is encouraged to move forward quickly with developing the next phase of the MedPartnership project (MedProgramme) and identifying and securing commitment from potential donors including the GEF, before the momentum created by the MedPartnership is lost. GEF and other donors are urged to support this next phase, which will add value to previous investments. Further, UNEP and MAP should make every effort to ensure that implementation of the next phase occurs in a timely manner without an extended inception period, should the project be approved.

2. Despite the range of valuable outputs and results generated by the project, most of the participating countries need additional support to assimilate the results in national policy and planning, develop monitoring programmes, improve data collection and sharing, and achieve greater integration among thematic areas in management programmes, etc. MAP in collaboration with co-executing partners should identify mechanisms to provide the necessary support to the countries including further capacity strengthening. Participating governments should also seek opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and strengthen their capacity, for example, by linking with those countries with more advanced programmes to learn from their experiences so they can be adapted and replicated in their own countries. MAP can facilitate this south-south collaboration. MAP and UNEP should also identify opportunities to assimilate the results in their own work and in future projects in the Mediterranean region.

3. The MedPartnership encountered difficulties with low staffing in the PMU for a project of this scope and complexity. This was exacerbated by loss of staff members at various times during project implementation, and although the PMU performance was exemplary despite these challenges, this situation placed a rather heavy burden on the PMU staff and on certain MAP staff members. In addition, most of the countries reported that limited human capacity constrained the extent of their participation in the project. In developing future project(s), UNEP and MAP should assess human resources needs for project management and technical support at the PMU and country level, and ensure that measures are taken to fill these needs in a timely manner.

4. Although there was wide stakeholder engagement during implementation of the MedPartnership, the involvement of NGOs, private sector, and Mediterranean countries that are not eligible for GEF funding could have been greater, although it is recognized that the project design might not have allowed for this. In developing future projects, UNEP and MAP should identify opportunities to more closely involve NGOs and the private sector in project activities and to engage more closely with non-GEF eligible countries that share the LME. More UNEP officers should be also involved in projects from the design phase to maximize opportunities for synergies with other UNEP projects and programmes, avoid duplication, and facilitate uptake of results in its own work.

5. The MedPartnership has produced a substantial volume of knowledge and information as well as a number of tools and guidelines, lessons, and experiences. MAP and UNEP should ensure that this valuable legacy is carefully preserved and institutionalized within their own programmes as appropriate. In addition, MAP and UNEP should take actions to widely showcase and disseminate the project results at the national, regional, and global levels, including to other Regional Seas Programmes and LME projects, using appropriate mechanisms including the UNEP, MAP and MedPartnership websites. Further, it is recommended that MAP undertake translation into the appropriate languages of the key documents produced by the project so that they are of greater utility to the participating countries. Sources of funds to cover

76

translation costs will need to be identified, and potential sources include the follow-on phase being developed by MAP and countries’ national budgets.

6. A number of challenges to project implementation were encountered at the national level, which can be attributed to various factors including internal politics, administrative hurdles and bureaucracy, limited human and institutional capacity, poor performance of focal points, financial constraints, and political conflicts and civil war. In developing future projects with a national component, UNEP and MAP should carefully identify potential problems that represent substantial sources of risk, and take appropriate decisions and identify necessary measures for risk mitigation.

77

ANNEXES

Annex 1. TORs (to be inserted in final draft)

Annex 2. MedPartnership Regional Component Logical framework – revised in 2014Project objective and Outcomes Description of indicator End-of-project target

ObjectiveTo promote and induce harmonized policy, legal and institutional reforms and fill the knowledge gap aimed at reversing marine and coastal degradation trends and living resources depletion, in accordance with priorities agreed by the countries in the SAP MED and SAP BIO and to prepare the ground for the future implementation of the ICZM Protocol.

Preparation and adoption of regional and national policy/legal/institutional reforms in all countries;

Between 5 and 10 regional and national policy documents and plans developed and adopted by relevant authorities.

Regional and National institutions strengthened in all countries through targeted capacity building activities

Minimum of 30 training sessions to build capacity of institutions

Increased scientific knowledge of the Mediterranean

Min. of 6 assessments undertaken related to coastal aquifers, nutrient fluxes, MPA’s, by-catch and unsustainable fishing practices, etc.

Participation of all relevant stakeholders in project activities and SAP/NAP implementation

Improved participation of stakeholders in the implementation of SAP NAPs: More than 1,000 stakeholders participate in national/regional workshops and execution of demonstrations

Development, training and demonstration of new tools/techniques and guidelines to address SAP priorities in all countries and widely disseminated

35 demonstrations implemented and disseminated successfully

Replication strategy designed and implemented with a minimum of 20 new replication practices identified

20 Priority Replicable Practices identified Regional replication strategies designed and implemented by

year 5 Minimum of 2 Replication actions implemented Lessons learned report on activities and best practices by 2015

Component 1: Integrated approaches for the implementation of the SAPs and NAPs: ICZM, IWRM and management of coastal aquifer

Project objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator End-of-project target

1.1 Management of Coastal Aquifer and Groundwater (UNESCO-IHP)Regional legislation to strengthen aquifer management

Regional Action Plan on Coastal Aquifers Regional strategic recommendations and action plan (including three sub-regional action plans) developed as annexes to the coastal aquifer supplement and adopted by ministerial focal points

Regional plan for eco-hydrogeological management, land degradation and protection of priority coastal wetlands

One regional plan developed and adopted by ministerial focal points

78

Regional and National institutions strengthened for aquifer management

Tools/guidelines for coastal aquifer management and groundwater including relevant land management approaches, developed and applied at demonstration sites, and eco-hydrogeology applications for management and protection of coastal wetlands

Related institutions informed about new tools/guidelines developed for coastal aquifer management and groundwater:- hydrogeological recommendations- legal, policy and institutional recommendations- recommendations for coastal wetlands that depend on

groundwater- vulnerability mapping methodologies- coastal aquifer supplement to the TDA-MED- Integrated methodological framework for ICZM and IWRM,

including coastal aquifer management and integration- Transboundary integrated management plan including

coastal aquifers for the Buna/Bojana area- Coastal aquifers incorporated into Algeria’s ICZM strategy

and integrated coastal plan in ReghaiaStress reduction measures identified as a baseline for future management of aquifers at water-body level.

Aquifers and Land degradation: appropriate aquifer and groundwater management tools in place with 7 demonstrations in 6 countries

Aquifers and groundwater: appropriate tools for groundwater dependent wetlands in one case study

UNESCO, through the tools and guidelines it will develop, provides an enabling environment for the countries to implement appropriate management approaches for coastal aquifers and coastal wetlands that are dependent upon groundwater.

Increased scientific knowledge concerning the management of aquifers and groundwater.

Assessment of risk and uncertainty related to Mediterranean coastal aquifers in all countries;

Coastal vulnerability mapping of aquifers at 3 sites in 2 countries; TDA supplement developed for adoption

Risk and vulnerability assessed in all countries (except Syria) and mapped in Tunisia and Croatia. The coastal aquifer supplement to the TDA-MED prepared and submitted for adoption.

1.2 Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) PAP/RAC

Regional legislation addressing ICZM, as mechanisms to protect the Mediterranean from biodiversity loss and pollution from land based sources.

Proposal for harmonization of national legislation with ICZM Protocol for 5000 km of the coast developed

Number of countries initiated the ratification of the ICZM Protocol process

Number of countries ratified the ICZM Protocol

By year 2014: at least 1 beneficiary country prepared a comprehensive

analysis of impacts of ratification of ICZM Protocol on national legislation

at least 3 beneficiary countries initiated the ratification process at least 2 beneficiary countries ratified the Protocol. 1 Regional Workshop to present the case study organized 12 national administrators from beneficiary countries and at

least 10 national ones from host country attending RW. Reference documents disseminated to responsible in all CPs

and to the NGOs official partners of MAPRegional and National institutions strengthened for ICZM

ICZM Strategies and NAPs submitted for adoption in a minimum of 2 countries containing proposals for ICZM institutional framework

By year 2014 Regional Guidelines for preparation of ICZM NS and NAPs one Regional Workshop to present Regional Guidelines to national responsible of beneficiary countries at least 12 national responsible from beneficiary countries trained two National ICZM Strategies and NAPs prepared and submitted for adoption at least two Investment portfolios presented as NAP outputs 2 National conferences organized Reference documents and WR disseminated to responsible in all CPs and to the NGOs official partners of MAP, and available at the MedPartnership and at the PAP/RAC web site

79

Integrative methodological framework (IMF) developed, tested in minimum of two demonstration areas (Buna/Bojana and Reghaia) and revised accordingly, and made available for replication in other areas.

IMF developed and translated into French Step by step guide for integration finalized for dissemination 500 copies disseminated through NFPs IMF available on the MedPartnership and PAP/RAC web sites IMF and its application presented at the Final Regional Workshop 17 NFPs from eligible countries attending Regional Workshop

Stress reduction measures achieved through ICZM, monitored at water-body level.

ICZM proposals for sustainable coastal development for2 demo sites covering 150,000 hectares of coastal zone

Transboundary project Albania/Montenegro: 1500 km2,

Reghaia (Algeria): 40 km2

2 ICZM Plans in fragile, endangered areas of global and national importance finalized and submitted for implementation at least 2 investment portfolios presented as outputs of respective Plans 2 respective National Conferences organized at least a total of 9 national institutions and 15 experts, also 3 key NGOs involved, Plan outputs and outcomes disseminated to responsible in beneficiary countries, to the NGOs official partners of MAP and available at the MedPartnership and at the PAP/RAC web site

Regional strategic planning addressing IWRM as mechanism to protect the Mediterranean from biodiversity loss and pollution from land based sources.

Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean technically facilitated and presented at UfM Ministerial level with environmental considerations dully reflected

SWM provides background for concerted IWRM action in the region

Regional and National institutions strengthened for IWRM.

Strategic planning for IWRM advanced, institutional framework for IWRM strengthened and tools for financing strategies on water provided at national level in 4 countries responding to country needs

Catalytic implementation for national IWRM plans implemented:Egypt – a) Sustainable financing strategy for the water supply and sanitation sector for Greater Cairo completed, b) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed

Lebanon – a) National 10-year Strategic Plan on Water reviewed and recommendations for action provided, b) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed c) decision support tool (WEAP model) application in selected river basins assisted and scenarios elaborated, d) National Water Sector Strategy assisted

Tunisia – a) National Water Strategy 2050 elaboration supported focusing on governance and private sector participation mechanisms, b) elaboration of water-related article of the new Constitution assisted, c) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed

Palestinian Territories –Support to the Water Governance Programme with focus on water financing and the role of private sector

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) developed in globally important river basin(s) and adjacent coastal

Integrative methodological framework (IMF) between ICZM and IWRM developed(The activity is reported also in Sub-Component 1.2 and is implemented in synergy with PAP/RAC (lead) and UNESCO

IMF developed, presented at Regional Workshop and disseminated

80

area IRBM plan for 1 shared water body prepared in parallel with ICZM and Coastal Aquifer;

Roadmap for local IRBM/ICZM plan elaborated in a shared or national water body as basis for a future management plan

IRBM plan for 1 water body finalized by 2014: Buna/Bojana (Montenegro & Albania) as part of the Drin

River Basin - 40 km2 / 335 km2 (jointly developed with PAP/RAC and UNESCO)

Pressures identified and local IRBM/ICZM planning roadmap prepared as basis for a future management plan: Damur (Lebanon) (provided that the SC will approve related Replication proposal or Medjerda (Algeria-Tunisia) if agreed by riparians

1.3 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) GWP-MedRegional strategic planning addressing IWRM as mechanism to protect the Mediterranean from biodiversity loss and pollution from land based sources.

Strategy for Water in the Mediterranean technically facilitated and presented at UfM Ministerial level with environmental considerations dully reflected

SWM provides background for concerted IWRM action in the region

Regional and National institutions strengthened for IWRM.

Strategic planning for IWRM advanced, institutional framework for IWRM strengthened and tools for financing strategies on water provided at national level in 4 countries responding to country needs

Catalytic implementation for national IWRM plans implemented:Egypt – a) Sustainable financing strategy for the water supply and sanitation sector for Greater Cairo completed, b) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed

Lebanon – a) National 10-year Strategic Plan on Water reviewed and recommendations for action provided, b) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed c) decision support tool (WEAP model) application in selected river basins assisted and scenarios elaborated, d) National Water Sector Strategy assisted

Tunisia – a) National Water Strategy 2050 elaboration supported focusing on governance and private sector participation mechanisms, b) elaboration of water-related article of the new Constitution assisted, c) national assessment for private sector participation in water infrastructure completed

Palestinian Territories –Support to the Water Governance Programme with focus on water financing and the role of private sector

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) developed in globally important river basin(s) and adjacent coastal area

Integrative methodological framework (IMF) between ICZM and IWRM developed(The activity is reported also in Sub-Component 1.2 and is implemented in synergy with PAP/RAC (lead) and UNESCO

IMF developed, presented at Regional Workshop and disseminated

IRBM plan for 1 shared water body prepared in parallel with ICZM and Coastal Aquifer;

Roadmap for local IRBM/ICZM plan elaborated in a shared or national water body as basis for a future management plan

IRBM plan for 1 water body finalized by 2014: Buna/Bojana (Montenegro & Albania) as part of the Drin

River Basin - 40 km2 / 335 km2 (jointly developed with PAP/RAC and UNESCO)

Pressures identified and local IRBM/ICZM planning roadmap prepared as basis for a future management plan: Damur (Lebanon) (provided that the SC will approve related Replication proposal or Medjerda (Algeria-Tunisia) if agreed by riparians

81

Component 2: Pollution from land based activities, including Persistent Organic Pollutants: implementation of SAP MED and related NAPs

Project objective and Outcomes Description of indicator

End-of-project target

2.1 Facilitation of policy and legislation reforms for pollution control (a) Industrial pollution pilot projects (MEDPOL)Increased capacity of basin countries to implement policies and strategies that address SAP MED and the NAPs priorities.

National legal and policy documents drafted (min. of 5) incorporating the SAP-MED priorities and in process of adoption by the countries.

Implementation initiated for a minimum of 8 NAP priorities in participating countries as a result of project activities and pilot projects, and monitored though Barcelona Convention mechanisms.

10 national policy documents drafted by end of 2014 and in the process of adoption approval by spring 2015Algeria: lube oils3 policy documents :a) national action plan on lube oil managementb) regulatory act on lube oil managementsupported byc) technical economic study on management of lube oil through recycling on situ or exporting abroadSyria : Lead batteriesa) Concrete Proposal for amending existing legislationb) Proposal to improve the whole chain of batteries draftedc) requirements for the creation of market for recycled lead batteriesTurkey ( tanneries)1. Upgraded standards for industrial effluents2. Preparation of policy reform to improve environmental management of tanneries through recycling of Chromium and Sulphur3. Preparation of a long term action plan to implement the policy reform4. Preparation of updated guidelines on BOD control and chromium recyclingTunisia PhosphogypsumSet of best practices on management of phosphogypsum sludge prepared by end of 2014

Tools/guidelines for pollution reduction from land-based sources tools applied: ELV and EQS, Guidelines for pollution reduction for

phosphogypsum waste, tannery effluents, national and replicable recycling systems for lube-oils and lead batteries and plans of action for permitting, compliance and inspection systems in eight countries.

Tools/guidelines introduced to countries that do not have appropriate tools/guidelines to assist in meeting SAP-MED targets

Regional methodology developed and adopted by 2013

Increased knowledge of countries and donors on innovative technology to reduce pollution and increased scientific knowledge.

Assessment of riverine fluxes of nutrients to the Mediterranean. Scenarios for regional variation of nutrients fluxes

Setting ELV in industrial effluents and EQS in all participating countries

Scenarios for impacts of inputs of pollution on the quality of the marine environment in selected sites.

Stress reduction measures achieved through demonstration projects and monitored at water-body level

No indicator

[Original indicators on reduction of cadmium, mercury, chromium, BOD, nitrogen]

No target

82

Increased knowledge of countries and donors on innovative technology to reduce pollution and increased scientific knowledge.

Capacity built at national level on integrated approach to industrial environmental management (TEST approach) and EST demonstration projects implemented at target enterprises.

At least 94 companies have successfully completed TEST At least 20 practitioners experts have been trained in

TEST At least 70 persons trained in TEST A total of 500 man/days of training delivered At least 55 companies have implemented EMS according

to ISO14001 A total number of 10 events held to raise awareness of

industries & institutional stakeholder

Stress reduction measures achieved through demonstration projects and monitored at water-body level.

Demonstration measures and investments to reduce industrial pollution at 12 companies

60% of total identified measures requiring no or moderate investments EST solutions identified for three quarters of demonstration companies (9 companies)

Water productivity at demonstration enterprises increased by 40%

Reduction of 40% at least in 50% of demonstration companies (6 companies) by year 5

Reduction of pollution loads at the demonstration enterprises.

Approx. 30% reduction of pollution loads in at least 50% of the demonstration companies (6 companies) by year 5,

Initiation of NAP/NIP implementation for the ESM of equipment, stocks and wastes contaminated with PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries

Five countries with strengthened legislative and regulatory frameworks for the management of POPs

Revised legal, regulatory and administrative instruments drafted and in the process of adoption by year 5

Tons of PCB’s removed and disposed in 5 countries

A minimum of 500 tons of PCBs disposed at a cost of 3.220 US$ per ton.[Originally 870 tonnes)

POPs phased-out from use

A minimum of 500 tons of PCB’s removed and disposed in 3-4 countriesPCB Disposal process scaled up for establishing a sustainable PCB management/elimination in the respective countries through additional UNDP and UNIDO projects in BH, Turkey and Egypt

Improvement of awareness on the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs

Provide an independent multilingual PCBs public awareness website, as part of the current Ministry of Environment website, expand and improve an existing PCB website in the target countries or create a new PCB website for use by participating countries and other Mediterranean countries. Develop and disseminate a PCB awareness video Develop and disseminate a toolkit for PCB owners and policy-makers

Improvement of the technical capacity for the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs

Train at least 175 people on PCB awareness and on the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs per target country.

Develop 4 PCB awareness workshops in target countries (one in each country)

Develop 8 PCB training courses in target countries (two in each country).

2.2 Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) - UNIDO

4 40% of demonstration companies (4 companies per country) corresponding to approx. 5 companies5 80% of demonstration companies in the three countries (4 companies per country) corresponding to approx. 9 companies

83

Increased knowledge of countries and donors on innovative technology to reduce pollution and increased scientific knowledge.

Capacity built at national level on integrated approach to industrial environmental management (TEST approach) and EST demonstration projects implemented at target enterprises.

At least 96 companies have successfully completed TEST At least 20 practitioners experts have been trained in

TEST At least 70 persons trained in TEST A total of 500 man/days of training delivered At least 57 companies have implemented EMS according

to ISO14001 A total number of 10 events held to raise awareness of

industries & institutional stakeholderStress reduction measures achieved through demonstration projects and monitored at water-body level.

Demonstration measures and investments to reduce industrial pollution at 12 companies

60% of total identified measures requiring no or moderate investments EST solutions identified for three quarters of demonstration companies (9 companies)

Water productivity at demonstration enterprises increased by 40%

Reduction of 40% at least in 50% of demonstration companies (6 companies) by year 5

Reduction of pollution loads at the demonstration enterprises.

Approx. 30% reduction of pollution loads in at least 50% of the demonstration companies (6 companies) by year 5,

2.3 Environmentally Sound Management of equipment, stocks and wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries (MEDPOL)

Initiation of NAP/NIP implementation for the ESM of equipment, stocks and wastes contaminated with PCBs in national electricity companies of Mediterranean countries

Five countries with strengthened legislative and regulatory frameworks for the management of POPs

Revised legal, regulatory and administrative instruments drafted and in the process of adoption by year 5

Tons of PCB’s removed and disposed in 5 countries

A minimum of 500 tons of PCBs disposed at a cost of 3.220 US$ per ton.[Originally 870 tonnes)

POPs phased-out from use

A minimum of 500 tons of PCB’s removed and disposed in 3-4 countriesPCB Disposal process scaled up for establishing a sustainable PCB management/elimination in the respective countries through additional UNDP and UNIDO projects in BH, Turkey and Egypt

Improvement of awareness on the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs

Provide an independent multilingual PCBs public awareness website, as part of the current Ministry of Environment website, expand and improve an existing PCB website in the target countries or create a new PCB website for use by participating countries and other Mediterranean countries. Develop and disseminate a PCB awareness video Develop and disseminate a toolkit for PCB owners and policy-makers

Improvement of the technical capacity for the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs

Train at least 175 people on PCB awareness and on the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of PCBs per target country.

Develop 4 PCB awareness workshops in target countries (one in each country)

Develop 8 PCB training courses in target countries (two in each country).

6 40% of demonstration companies (4 companies per country) corresponding to approx. 5 companies7In this report, the RC is also referred to as the MedPartnership project or the project. The RC and Investment Fund together constitute the Strategic Partnership.

84

Component 3 Conservation of biological diversity: implementation of SAP BIO and related NAPs

Project objective and Outcomes Description of indicator End-of-project target

3.1 Conservation of Coastal and Marine Diversity through the Development of a Mediterranean MPA Network (RAC/SPA and WWF-MedPO)Countries have the capacity to conserve regionally important coastal and marine biodiversity through the creation of an ecologically representative, coherent and effective MPA network in the Mediterranean region supported by a region-wide network of MPA managers

Participation of all key regional and national stakeholders in MPA creation process

12 regional representatives for each of the five meetings 22 parties’ representatives in three SAPBIO national correspondent meetings Three national stakeholder involvement plans developed and adopted (Albania, Libya and Morocco)

Management of MPA’s strengthened in 5 pilot sites, including the finalization of 7 management plans

At least 7 MPA management plans developed by 2012 Important areas for conservation identified in Libya (jointly with RAC/SPA) Management unit established in Cap Negro-Cap Serrat (Tunisia) At least 2 draft of the management plans of Farwa Lagoon and Ain El Ghazela (Libya) developed by 2015

Minimum of 30 agreements implemented to apply MPA management learnt tools and methods through activities agreed during the regional training workshops

A minimum of 30 agreements implemented to apply learnt tools and methods through activities agreed during the regional training workshops

On-the-job trained local personnel on many aspects of MPAs field management

At least 9 specialists from at least three MPAs trained (specialists not existing in Albania, low specialization opportunities in Croatia and Montenegro)

The existing MedPAN network of MPA managers is effectively expanded by including organizations/institutions from the project beneficiary countries

At least 1 organization in each of the participating countries in the MedPAN as a member or a partner. 30 region-wide exchanges among MPA managers, practitioners and relevant authorities throughout the project 6 tools and guidelines for the creation of MPAs translated into French and Arabic and disseminated

4 countries receive support for strengthening their long-term financial sustainability

Regional assessment of financial mechanisms 5MPA business plans for five sites in Albania, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco by 2014 (SPA/RAC); A Feasibility study on ecotourism/Green economy in Montenegro (RAC/SPA) Twelve staff trained on recurrent funding mechanisms for MPA in Albania, Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Morocco by 2014 (SPA/RAC); By year 2012, sustainable financial mechanisms identified for Cap Negro-Cap Serrat, Tunisia (WWF-MedPO) 15 practitioners have the capacities to develop a MPA sustainable tourism management plan (including business plan); 2 training toolkits or management tools on sustainable tourism and financial planning developed

85

Priority areas identified and a minimum of 4 new MPAs in the process of declaration, with management plans

Surface area under national jurisdiction covered by MPA’s increased from 1 to 5% (starting from 982,600 hectares )

Priority areas identified, listed and assessed for the creation of a National MPA network in Croatia, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco and Montenegro Min of 5 draft diagnostic reports and 5 final diagnostic reports (Croatia, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco and Montenegro); 1 to 5% increase in surface area of MPAs Minimum of 6 new MPAs in the process of declaration, with management plans (Albania, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia); 9 technical reports and mapping dossiers (ecological and fisheries issues within the MPAs) (Albania, Algeria, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Montenegro, Morocco, Tunisia,) 5 Stakeholder involvement plans for the 5 new MPAs agreed by the parties (Albania, Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia)

A regional communication strategy for MPAs is developed and implemented

At least 3000 hits/month on the MedPAN website Newsletter sent to at least 100 managers, practitioners and relevant authorities in the beneficiary countries At least 4 different types of communication tools developed A photographic book produced and a photo exhibition organized 1 video produced to promote MPA sustainable tourism 1 brochure or policy brief produced on MPA sustainable tourism 1 innovative communication product (app, blog, etc) developed

Countries have the capacity to sustainably utilize coastal and high seas fisheries resources through the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries including the application of targeted interventions to reduce bycatch and unsustainable fishing

Level of awareness of national EAF-related priorities by fisheries institutions and relevant stakeholders

EAF-related priorities identified for the four directly targeted countries (Croatia, Montenegro, Tunisia and Turkey), by the staff of the main fisheries institutions, in an organized process, with FAO support

Level of inclusion of explicit EAF considerations in the work-plans of the main fisheries institutions of the directly targeted countries

Fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries have drafted plans to explicitly integrate EAF considerations into their work

Relative number of key staff of the main fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries that are able to participate in discussions on the application of EAF

All key staff of the main fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries are able to participate in discussions on the application of EAF, and explain its approach to others

Relative extent of the fisheries legal and management systems that have been analyzed for the identification of the main gaps/needs relative to the application of EAF countries, and for which proposals for improvement have been drafted

The main gaps/needs of the fisheries legal and management system relative to the application of EAF have been identified in the four directly targeted countries, and 4 to 5 proposals for improvement of the fisheries legal and management framework system have been drafted for at least three of the target countries

Level of knowledge available on the main patterns of by-catch of iconic and vulnerable species and/or undersized commercial species

Main patterns of by-catch of iconic and vulnerable species and/or undersized commercial species have been identified for at least one métier in each of the two target countries, and reports are available with this information

86

Level of awareness and engagement of commercial fishers regarding the importance of achieving a reduction of the bycatch of endangered/iconic species and/or undersized commercial species

All key fishers and vessel owners associations from the Gulf of Gabés aware of the problems caused by high levels of bycatch of endangered/iconic species and/or undersized commercial species and engaged in reducing the level of this bycatch.

Percentage of all fishing trips in the selected MPA landing sites that are monitored with fisher’s participation using an adequate design

At least 15% of all fishing trips in the selected MPA are monitored with fisher’s participation using an adequate design

3.2 Promotion of the sustainable use of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean through the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (FAO) Countries have the capacity to sustainably utilize coastal and high seas fisheries resources through the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries including the application of targeted interventions to reduce bycatch and unsustainable fishing

Level of awareness of national EAF-related priorities by fisheries institutions and relevant stakeholders

EAF-related priorities identified for the four directly targeted countries (Croatia, Montenegro, Tunisia and Turkey), by the staff of the main fisheries institutions, in an organized process, with FAO support

Level of inclusion of explicit EAF considerations in the work-plans of the main fisheries institutions of the directly targeted countries

Fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries have drafted plans to explicitly integrate EAF considerations into their work

Relative number of key staff of the main fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries that are able to participate in discussions on the application of EAF

All key staff of the main fisheries institutions in at least three of the directly targeted countries are able to participate in discussions on the application of EAF, and explain its approach to others

Relative extent of the fisheries legal and management systems that have been analyzed for the identification of the main gaps/needs relative to the application of EAF countries, and for which proposals for improvement have been drafted

The main gaps/needs of the fisheries legal and management system relative to the application of EAF have been identified in the four directly targeted countries, and 4 to 5 proposals for improvement of the fisheries legal and management framework system have been drafted for at least three of the target countries

Level of knowledge available on the main patterns of by-catch of iconic and vulnerable species and/or undersized commercial species

Main patterns of by-catch of iconic and vulnerable species and/or undersized commercial species have been identified for at least one métier in each of the two target countries, and reports are available with this information

Level of awareness and engagement of commercial fishers regarding the importance of achieving a reduction of the bycatch of endangered/iconic species and/or undersized commercial species

All key fishers and vessel owners associations from the Gulf of Gabés aware of the problems caused by high levels of bycatch of endangered/iconic species and/or undersized commercial species and engaged in reducing the level of this bycatch.

Percentage of all fishing trips in the selected MPA landing sites that are monitored with fisher’s participation using an adequate design

At least 15% of all fishing trips in the selected MPA are monitored with fisher’s participation using an adequate design

87

Component 4 Project Co-ordination, NGO Involvement, Replication and Communication Strategies, Management and M&E

Project objective and Outcomes Description of indicator End-of-project target

4.1 Project Co-ordination, NGO Involvement , Management and M&EEffective project management of the Regional Component established and coordination and synergy between the Regional Component and the Investment Fund components of the MedPartnership.

MedPartnership Project Steering Committee meets regularly to engage all key stakeholders involved in SAP-MED and SAP-BIO implementation

Once a year PSC meeting held and major management decisions taken

MedPartnership Coordination Group meets regularly involving all project partners

Once a year CG meeting held and major management decisions taken

Project Management Unit for the Regional Component of the Strategic Partnership manages the project

Successful project implementation

Financial Strategies for sustainable financing of SAP-MED developed

Financial mechanisms in place (national and international funding) in a minimum of five countries for NAP implementation - by 2014

Long term sustainability of actions and further implementation and monitoring of the SAPs and NAPs

[Original: “Long-term Barcelona Convention and MAP based public/private framework in place and operational meeting BC defined objectives for sustained LME management”]

Integration of future SAP/NAP implementation integrated into Ecosystem Approach (ECAP) future planning on measures and fully integrated into the next 6 year MAP Strategy (2016-2021).Funding to be sought for joint SAP and ECAP implementation from 2015 onwards.

Effective national inter-ministry coordination. Interministerial Commitees/national coordination mechanisms established in all participating countries and advises national authorities and PMU for long term implementation of regional plans such as ICZM, IWRM, protected areas etc.

Involvement of NGOs in the project activities Effective NGO involvement throughout the

implementation of the project

NGOs contribute to the achievement of the MedPartnership’s targets by year 5

Information & Communication mechanisms designed and implemented for MedPartnership Project

Information & Communication Strategy for the Med Partnership developed.

Improving access to, and sharing of, information, results and lessons learned with all key stakeholders informed of the project activities.

Relevant stakeholders informed of project activities

Lessons learned disseminated to all national/international organizations by 2015

Replication and Information & Communication mechanisms designed and implemented for Replicable Practices (RPs) under the MedPartnership, with results communicated and disseminated

Identification of Potential Replicable Practices

Regional replication strategies designed including their funding mechanisms.

20 Priority Replicable Practices identified Regional replication strategies designed and

implemented by year 5 Minimum of 2 Replication actions implemented Lessons learned report on activities and best

practices by 2015

4.2 Information and Communication strategiesInformation & Communication mechanisms designed and implemented for MedPartnership Project

Information & Communication Strategy for the Med Partnership developed.

Improving access to, and sharing of, information, results and lessons learned with all key stakeholders informed of the project activities.

Relevant stakeholders informed of project activities

Lessons learned disseminated to all national/international organizations by 2015

88

4.3 Replication StrategyReplication and Information & Communication mechanisms designed and implemented for Replicable Practices (RPs) under the MedPartnership, with results communicated and disseminated

Identification of Potential Replicable Practices

Regional replication strategies designed including their funding mechanisms.

20 Priority Replicable Practices identified Regional replication strategies designed and

implemented by year 5 Minimum of 2 Replication actions implemented Lessons learned report on activities and best

practices by 2015

89

Annex 3. Project design (from Terminal evaluation Inception report)

Criteria Addressed by PRC

(Note : Based on the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel review)

Evaluation Comments Rating

Project preparation and readiness

HS

1 Does the project document provide a description of stakeholder consultation during project design process?

No The project document does not provide a detailed description of stakeholder consultation during project design phase. But it does refer to the Stocktaking Meeting for the development of the GEF Strategic Partnership project that was held in Trieste, Italy, October 2004, where representatives of the Mediterranean countries expressed their full support for the GEF initiative and considered that the effective initiation of SAP-MED activities and the recent adoption of the SAP-BIO provided an excellent opportunity to apply an integrated approach involving addressing both pollution reduction and the protection of biological diversity. The document also stresses that prior to the PDF-B phase of the project, key stakeholders participated in the formulation of the TDA-MED, SAP-MED, and SAP-BIO on which the present project activities are based. A participatory approach was also adopted in the development of the NAPs and included consultations with national and local authorities, the private sector and NGOs. The activities have been fully developed by the project’s executing and co-executing agencies: UNEP, MAP (and its RACs), FAO, UNIDO, UNESCO, MIO-ECSDE, WWF, GWP-MED, METAP and MEDPOL, all of which have a long history of working with the private and public sector in the Mediterranean, and ensured that activities have been designed to involve all key stakeholders on a number of levels. Stakeholder participation is an inherent part of the structure of MAP and the Barcelona Convention, where all countries (represented by the MAP focal point) form the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention. Further, the project document elaborated the execution and partnership arrangements, and includes a stakeholder involvement plan that included agreed roles of specific stakeholders (e.g. nomination of national focal points) and specific roles of co-executing agencies, so clearly extensive consultation with key stakeholders/partners would have taken place.

HS

2 Does the project document include a clear stakeholder analysis? Are stakeholder needs and priorities clearly

No The project document included a stakeholder involvement plan (Annex K) and a draft NGO involvement plan (Annex H). All activities and demonstration projects were developed to include the participation of stakeholders at various levels in the design, implementation, dissemination and replication of actions. The project was designed to implement measures

HS

90

understood and integrated in project design? (see annex 9)

(SAPs and NAPs) to address priority issues identified in the TDA, which was agreed by all the countries and other stakeholders. Therefore, stakeholder need and priorities were explicitly addressed.

3 Does the project document entail a clear situation analysis?

Yes Yes, the project document including the increment cost analysis includes a clear and comprehensive situation analysis and description of the baseline that includes the environmental challenges in the Med, history of collaboration among the countries (focus on MAP), status of integrated management of water and coastal zones, existing relevant projects and initiatives, and legal and institutional frameworks, etc.

HS

4 Does the project document entail a clear problem analysis?

STAP commented on the scientific and technical basis of the project (favourable). One of the reviewers pointed out the need to consider climate change and certain anomalies re the impacts in the Med.

Yes, the project document includes a clear problem analysis of the environmental challenges of the Med (priority issues identified in the TDA). The incremental cost analysis also provides details of the problems, baseline and situation without the GEF intervention.

HS

5 Does the project document entail a clear gender analysis?

No No. There is no mention of gender and only one reference to women with respect to the increasing trend to involve the young and women in community development (Annex I).

U

Relevance Addressed by PRC

Evaluation Comments HS

6 Is the project document clear in terms of relevance to:

i) Global, Regional, Sub-regional and National environmental issues and needs?

Partially Yes, the project document clearly describes the relevance of the project to global, regional, sub-regional and national environmental issues and needs (the latter including in the country-driveness section). It aimed to support the implementation of global and regional environmental conventions and frameworks such as the CBD and GPA, the Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean Action Plan, and achievement of the MDGs and WSSD targets. Further, the project aimed to support implementation of the SAPs and NAPs, which are based on regional and national priorities and needs.

HS

7 ii) UNEP mandate

No Relevance to UNEP mandate is not explicitly described but the project document states that the Project’s objectives and activities, fully comply with the Strategic Objective proposed by UNEP for its GEF Programme of Work of the “Action Plan on Complementarity Between the Activities Undertaken by UNEP under the GEF and its Programme of Work, which stipulates “Promoting regional and multi-country cooperation to achieve global environmental benefits”. Further, the project was implemented under MAP, which was the first

S

91

Regional Seas Programme of UNEP. The descriptions of the components mention the conformity of the activities with UNEP’s mandate (Annex F).

8 iii) the relevant GEF focal areas, strategic priorities and operational programme(s)? (if appropriate)

Yes Yes, the document describes the fit of the project to GEF Strategies and Strategic Programs, specifically to GEF International Waters Focal Area strategy, GEF Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Focal Area strategy, GEF 4 IW Strategic Objective (SOs) 2 (“To catalyze transboundary action addressing water concerns”), and Strategic Programmes 1, 2, and 3.

HS

9 iv) Stakeholder priorities and needs?

Partially The project responds to stakeholder needs to address priority issues identified in the TDA, which stakeholders have contributed to and have endorsed. It also aims to support implementation of the two SAPs and NAPs, which are based on regional and national priorities and needs.

HS

10 Is the project document clear in terms of relevance to cross-cutting issues

i) Gender equity

No No mention is made of gender equity. Women’s organizations are included among the stakeholder groups.

U

11 ii) South-South Cooperation

No South-south cooperation is not explicitly discussed but collaboration among the partner countries and replication of measures and lessons from the demonstration projects among the countries will facilitate south-south cooperation.

S

12 iii) Bali Strategic Plan

Not explicitly

Bali Strategic Plan is not explicitly mentioned, but the project is highly relevant to the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building to strengthen the capacity of governments in developing countries and countries with economies in transition to coherently address their needs, priorities and obligations in the field of the environment.

S

Intended Results and Causality

Addressed by PRC

S

13 Are the outcomes realistic?

STAP found that the project is realistic in its scope.

The substantive project components (1-3) have 18 outcomes and component 4 on project coordination, management etc. has 3 outcomes. The project-defined outcomes (revised results framework) were realistic and feasible, although in retrospect the timeframe and budget were clearly underestimated.

S

14 Are the causal pathways from project outputs [goods and services] through outcomes [changes in stakeholder behaviour] towards impacts clearly and convincingly described? Is there a clearly presented Theory of Change or intervention logic for the project?

Partially A TOC is not explicitly presented and described, but the project logical framework provides a clear pathway from outcomes and activities to end-of-project targets, and associated assumptions for the four project components. Expected impacts and results are also described. In addition, the baseline and incremental cost analysis describes the situation with and without the GEF intervention. The project is based on the premise that increased capacity of the countries to implement policies and strategies that address SAP priorities; policy, legal, and institutional reforms; increased knowledge of stress reduction measures and effective technologies that address regional priorities; and increased coordination of donor and government programmes for SAP implementation will help to reverse marine and coastal degradation trends and living marine resources depletion, and to prepare the ground for implementation of the ICZM Protocol.

S

92

15 Is the timeframe realistic? What is the likelihood that the anticipated project outcomes can be achieved within the stated duration of the project?

No The timeframe would have been adequate if no delays were encountered. Some of these delays were outside the project’s control (such as conflicts and political instability in certain countries). In retrospect, the time frame was underestimated for such a complex project, which required a no-cost extension to ensure that the anticipated outcomes would be achieved.

MS

16 Are activities appropriate to produce outputs?

Yes The project includes an enormous number of activities, which are appropriate to produce results.

HS

17 Are activities appropriate to drive change along the intended causal pathway(s)?

Yes Yes, the activities are appropriate to drive change along the intended causal pathways (risks and assumptions were noted) for the four project components.

HS

18 Are impact drivers and assumptions clearly described for each key causal pathway?

No Impact drivers are not explicitly described as such but the project document describes intended results for each component that can be viewed as impact drivers. Assumptions are clearly described in the log frame.

S

19 Are the roles of key actors and stakeholders clearly described for each key causal pathway?

No The project document including the stakeholder involvement plan clearly describes the roles of key actors and stakeholders (co-executing agencies, governments, NGOs and others) for each of the four components.

HS

20 Is the ToC-D terminology (result levels, drivers, assumptions etc.) consistent with UNEP definitions (Programme Manual)

No In general the terminology is consistent with UNEP definitions. S

Efficiency Addressed by PRC

HS

21 Does the project intend to make use of / build upon pre-existing institutions, agreements and partnerships, data sources, synergies and complementarities with other initiatives, programmes and projects etc. to increase project efficiency?

No One of the project’s major strengths is the robust partnership that was established for implementing the project activities. The project was specifically designed to be executed by appropriate partners and to build on the host of pre-existing institutions, agreements, partnerships, data sources, initiatives, programmes, and projects in the Mediterranean region to increase project efficiency. Adopting a regional approach to the implementation of the SAPs and NAPs was also expected to enhance efficiency.

HS

Sustainability / Replication and Catalytic effects

Addressed by PRC

S

22 Does the project design present a strategy / approach to sustaining outcomes / benefits?

Partially A comprehensive sustainability strategy is not included and will be developed during the project. A number of activities/conditions/outcomes will favour sustainability, for example, focus of the proposed project to create an enabling framework for

S

93

countries to implement their SAPs and NAPs in an accelerated manner and provide a basis for the further development of integrated coastal and water management; demonstration/pilot projects that can be subsequently replicated; identification of legislative, policy and institutional reforms for adoption by governments to strengthen their ability to implement NAPs within and beyond the life of the proposed project (these reforms will be an incentive to sustainability in the region because they will define the path of future interventions for environmental protection in the region). An important goal is developing or identifying sustainable financing mechanisms and ensuring the financial sustainability of specific measures.

23 Does the design identify social or political factors that may influence positively or negatively the sustenance of project results and progress towards impacts?

Partially Yes, for example, the capacity and ability of governments to implement the NAPs beyond the life of the project, participation of civil society organizations. A number of risks and assumptions are discussed in the project document and log frame including: Political willingness to adopt the necessary institutional, policy and legislative reforms and to sustain project programmes and initiatives beyond the life of the GEF intervention, effective participation and active involvement of all stakeholders in project execution, and potential territorial disputes and/or economic crises (it is presumed that the former includes civil unrest and conflicts as being experienced in some Med countries).

S

24 Does the design foresee sufficient activities to promote government and stakeholder awareness, interests, commitment and incentives to execute, enforce and pursue the programmes, plans, agreements, monitoring systems etc. prepared and agreed upon under the project?

No The project design includes a Stakeholder Involvement Plan and detailed NGO Involvement Plan as well as a number of other activities to engage stakeholders and raise awareness and get commitment to execute and enforce programmes and plans, etc.

S

25 If funding is required to sustain project outcomes and benefits, does the design propose adequate measures / mechanisms to secure this funding?

No Funding is required to sustain project outcomes and benefits and the project design makes provisions for developing or identifying sustainable financing mechanisms, for example, developing policy briefs and guidelines for the sustainable financing of NAPs, mechanisms for ensuring the financial sustainability of regional and national MPA networks, catalyzing investments, and contributing to capacity building of national officials to seek sustainable funding of pilot ICZM projects. The WB Investment Fund is expected to provide a mechanism for scaling up results and impacts towards delivery of the long term goal of the partnership to reverse the trend of water quality and biodiversity degradation in the Mediterranean.

S

26 Are financial risks adequately identified and does the project describe a clear strategy on how to mitigate the risks (in terms of project’s

No Financial risks are adequately identified and a number of activities are planned to address financial needs for project sustainability (see above).

S

94

sustainability)27 Does the project design

adequately describe the institutional frameworks, governance structures and processes, policies, sub-regional agreements, legal and accountability frameworks etc. required to sustain project results?

No Details of frameworks and structures are not elaborated but it is recognized that the institutional framework to ensure sustainability is the Mediterranean Action Plan and the Barcelona Convention. It is also proposed that the Steering Committee and the Co-ordination Group of the SP, in close co-operation with MAP and the Barcelona Convention develop a Strategic Framework that will work towards attaining MDG and WSSD Environmental targets. For this purpose MAP will co-ordinate with all countries, IAs and NGOs in the region. The project also aims to identify legal, policy and institutional reforms that will contribute to sustaining project results if they are implemented.

S

28 Does the project design identify environmental factors, positive or negative, that can influence the future flow of project benefits? Are there any project outputs or higher level results that are likely to affect the environment, which, in turn, might affect sustainability of project benefits?

Yes Climate change impact is identified as a major factor that poses a threat to the biodiversity and ecosystems of the Mediterranean Sea. This, however, is not addressed in the project design (but in the subsequent ClimVar project). There are no project outputs or higher level results that are likely to have any negative effects on the environment. The project aims to have a positive outcome on the environment. One scenario that could potentially develop is improvement in the health and natural resource base of the LME attracting more users, which if not properly managed could lead to the carrying capacity of the LME being exceeded. This will undermine the gains made by the project. Another potential risk is associated with the disposal of POPs waste and stockpiles – this could harm the environment if not properly done.

S

29 Does the project design foresee adequate measures to promote replication and up-scaling / does the project have a clear strategy to promote replication and up-scaling?

No The project design recognizes a strong need for a replication strategy that will maximize the chances of ‘regional transfer’ of demonstration and pilot projects. A number of innovative strategies were proposed to ensure the replication of the demonstrations and projects of both the Regional Component and Investment Fund, the lessons learnt and results achieved within the project and the Strategic Partnership itself. These included the creation of a joint MAP/World Bank Project Replication Team to ensure that every demonstration and pilot project has a valid replication component (or strategy) incorporated into the activity from the initial stage of concept design; 2 Replication Meetings to be held tentatively on the second and fourth year of the project execution, and developing a Replication Scoring System to objectively evaluate and score potential replicability. In addition, the Investment Fund is expected to provide a mechanism for scaling up results and impacts towards delivery of the long term goal of the partnership to reverse the trend of water quality and biodiversity degradation in the Mediterranean.

S

30 Are the planned activities likely to generate the level of ownership by the main national and regional stakeholders necessary to allow for the project results to be sustained?

No The planned activities, such as the demonstration projects and involvement of main stakeholders, activities geared to strengthening capacity, addressing identified priority issues, and stakeholder engagement are expected to contribute to high level of ownership. However, ownership in itself is not sufficient to ensure sustainability of results (as will be shown by the terminal evaluation TOC and RoTI analysis).

S

95

Learning, Communication and outreach

Addressed by PRC

S

Has the project identified appropriate methods for communication with key stakeholders during the project life?

No Yes, appropriate methods of communication with key stakeholders are identified, and include regular emails and conference calls, annual technical meetings with all the co-executing agencies, a mid-term stocktaking meeting, and establishment of an IC mechanism within the Partnership itself to ensure comprehensive and continuously-updated information exchange among partners regarding project activities (see below).

S

Are plans in place for dissemination of results and lesson sharing.

No A number of mechanisms are proposed to disseminate results and lessons, with particular attention to the use of modern information and communication approaches. The information and communication (IC) activities of the RC will include:• Establishment of an IC mechanism within the Partnership itself to ensure comprehensive and continuously-updated information exchange among partners regarding project activities; and• Setting up an IC mechanism to the outside world to publicize the partnership and disseminate information on project progress and results.Specific mechanisms include an Intranet/Internet site and on-line magazine (linked to IWLearn), participation in selected national and international environmental events including the IW Biannual Conference, audiovisual campaign for media dissemination, internet, workshops, events, publications, etc). Development of a communication strategy is also planned.

S

Do learning, communication and outreach plans build on analysis of existing communication channels and networks used by key stakeholders?

No An analysis of existing communication channels and networks used by key stakeholders has not been undertaken, but one of the mechanisms will build on GEF IWLearn. A communication strategy will be developed during the project.

S

Governance and Supervision Arrangements

Addressed by PRC

HS

31 Is the project governance model comprehensive, clear and appropriate? (Steering Committee, partner consultations etc. )

Yes The governance model is comprehensive, clear and appropriate for a project of this scope and complexity. The governance arrangements encompassing the regional (e.g. Implementing and executing agencies, steering committee, Coordination Group) and national levels (focal points, National Interministerial Committees) and composition are adequately described.

HS

32 Are supervision / oversight arrangements clear and appropriate?

Yes Supervision / oversight arrangements are clear and appropriate, and in accordance with GEF and UNEP standard policies and practices. The project document also describes the composition and role of the PMU, PSC, Coordination Group, focal points, etc.

HS

Management, Execution and Partnership Arrangements

Addressed by PRC

HS

96

33 Have the capacities of partners been adequately assessed?

No The capacities of partners are not explicitly assessed in the project document but partners are selected based on their known capacities based on, for example, their respective areas of expertise and activities related to environmental and natural resources management in the region. Selected partners have excellent capacities for execution of relevant project activities.

HS

34 Are the execution arrangements clear and are roles and responsibilities within UNEP clearly defined?

No The execution arrangements are clear and roles and responsibilities within UNEP are clearly defined (including TORs of all Project management staff).

HS

35 Are the roles and responsibilities of external partners properly specified?

No The roles and responsibilities of external partners are clear and properly specified in each component and in programme implementation and institutional framework.

HS

Financial Planning / budgeting

Addressed by PRC

S

36 Are there any obvious deficiencies in the budgets / financial planning? (coherence of the budget, do figures add up etc.)

Partially Detailed budgets are presented in the project document. No deficiences and irregularities are observed.

S

Has budget been reviewed and agreed to be realistic with key project stakeholders?

Yes Work plans and associated budgets are included in the project document, which has been reviewed by key stakeholders, and the fact that the project was ultimately endorsed by the GEF CEO indicates that the budget was considered realistic.

S

37 Is the resource utilization cost effective?

No Resource utilization appears to be cost effective. S

38 How realistic is the resource mobilization strategy?

No Resource mobilization strategy/financing mechanism is to be developed during the project. Annex N of the project document presents a Review of existing financial constraints and measures and proposal for a UNEP/GEF programme on strengthening sustainable environmental financial mechanism for the implementation of the NAPS.

39 Are the financial and administrative arrangements including flows of funds clearly described?

Partially Financial and administrative arrangements are clearly described and are consistent with UNEP policies and practices. Flows of funds to the project components and activities are clearly described.

S

Monitoring Addressed by PRC

S

40 Does the logical framework

capture the key elements of the Theory of Change for the project?

Partiall The revised logical framework captures the key elements of the project’s TOC, which is based on the remise that

S

have ‘SMART’ indicators

Partially The log frame has SMART indicators for outcomes and objectives. Nearly all the indicators are quantifiable and

HS

97

for outcomes and objectives?

time-bound.

have appropriate 'means of verification'?

No The 'means of verification' are appropriate. S

41 Are the milestones appropriate and sufficient to track progress and foster management towards outputs and outcomes?

No In the revised logical framework the milestones are end of project targets. The M & E plan includes process and stress reduction indicators showing improvements in Process and Stress Reduction relative to Project activities and deliverables, parameters measured, target and baseline. The targets or milestones are appropriate and sufficient to track progress.

S

42 Is there baseline information in relation to key performance indicators?

No Baseline information is provided (although most is qualitative). S

43 How well has the method for the baseline data collection been explained?

No This has not been explained U

44 Has the desired level of achievement (targets) been specified for indicators of outputs and outcomes?

No In the revised log frame End of project targets for outcomes (no outputs given) have been specified most of which are quantitative.

HS

45 How well are the performance targets justified for outputs and outcomes?

No End-of-project targets for objectives and outcomes are given in the logframe (outputs are not specified). A justification of performance targets is not included in the project document but the end-of-project targets are feasible and consistent with the expected outcomes.

S

46 Has a budget been allocated for monitoring project progress in implementation against outputs and outcomes?

No An indicative budget has been allocated for monitoring in the M & E plan (Annex E)

S

47 Does the project have a clear knowledge management approach?

No The proposed knowledge management approach is outlined and will consist of an ICT Platform to effectively collate, record and manage information on a common web based platform (web portal). It will be developed following the principles and guidelines outlined by IW-LEARN. Details are given in the project document.

S

Have mechanisms for involving key project stakeholder groups in monitoring activities been clearly articulated?

No The M & E plan specifies the responsibilities of co-executing agencies in M & E, but no specific mechanisms have been articulated for involving key project stakeholder groups in monitoring activities.

MS

Evaluation Addressed by PRC

S

48 Is there an adequate plan for evaluation?

No An adequate monitoring and evaluation plan is included in the project document (Annex E). This makes provisions for independent Mid-term

S

98

and Final Evaluations and Mid-Term Stocktaking Meeting. An indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and corresponding budget is also included.

49 Has the time frame for evaluation activities been specified?

No Mid-term and Final Evaluations and Mid-Term Stocktaking Meeting will take place at the end of the second year of implementation, three months prior to the end of the project and during the second or third year of the Strategic Partnership, respectively.

S

50 Is there an explicit budget provision for mid-term review and terminal evaluation?

No There is an explicit budget provision for mid-term evaluation and terminal evaluation ($45,000 each).

S

51 Is the budget sufficient? No The proposed budget may be inadequate in view of the scope and complexity of the project.

MS

99

Annex 4. Documents and materials reviewed or consulted

- Project Document- Project Inception Report (May 2010)- Revised results framework- Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Mediterranean Sea- Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity (SAP BIO)- Strategic Action Programme to address Pollution from Land-based Sources (SAP MED)- Mid-term Evaluation Report - MedPartnership Project- Implementation Plan of the Mid-Term Evaluation - Steering Committee Meeting Reports (2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015)- Annual workplans and budgets (presented at PSC meetings) - Coordination Group meeting reports (1st, 2nd and 3rd meetings)- Project Implementation Review reports (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)- Letters of Agreement (FAO, UNESCO/IHP) - Project Cooperation Agreements (GWP-Med, MIO-ECSDE, PAP/RAC, WWF)- Final Umbrella Budget- Draft Budget Revisions (February 2014 and March 2015)- Summary Activity Report 2009-2015, UNEP-MAP- Annual Reports (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)- Selected mission reports (Project Manager)- MedPan South mid-term report 2011- MedPartnership Experience Notes- MedPartnership Country Factsheets- NGO Involvement Plan September 2010- Draft Communication Strategy February 2011- Report of the 19th Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of

the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols, Athens, Greece, 9-12 February 2016.

- UNEP MAP Mid-Term Strategy 2016-2021- UNEP Mid-Term Strategy and Programme of Work 2012-2013- Bali Strategic Plan- The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation-Towards a Common Understanding

among UN Agencies

Selected project outputs

- Regional Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production in the Mediterranean.- Roadmap for a Comprehensive Coherent Network of Well-Managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to

Achieve Aichi Target 11 in the Mediterranean.- Guidelines for the preparation of National ICZM Strategies required by the Integrated Coastal Zone

Management (ICZM) Protocol for the Mediterranean.- Vulnerability mapping of the Pula coastal aquifer (Croatia).- Environmental Sound PCB Management Guide (Mediterranean Region).- Guidelines for environmentally sound management of used lead batteries.

100

- MED TEST Transfer of Environmental Sound Technology in the South Mediterranean Region: Project Summary and Achievements.

- Enhancing management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Algeria, Croatia, and Turkey.- Stakeholder Engagement. Participatory Approaches for the Planning and Development of Marine

Protected Areas. World Wide Fund for Nature and NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program.- Caractérisation des prises accessoires dans la pêcherie au chalut de fond dans le Golfe de Gabès (Tunisie)

et suggestions pour sa reduction.- Capacity building strategy to enhance the management of MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea.- Draft Mediterranean Environmental Replication Strategy "MERES", 2012.- MedPartnership Online Bibliography

Websites and communication/outreach material

- MedPartnership: www.themedpartnership.org/- PAP/RAC: www.pap-thecoastcentre.org - SPA/RAC: www.rac-spa.org/medmpanet- SCP RAC: www.cprac.org/- WWF MedPO: mediterranean.panda.org/- GWP Med: www.gwp.org/en/GWP-Mediterranean/- UNEP MAP: www.unepmap.org/- GEF: www.thegef.org- Horizon2020: http://www.h2020.net/- EU SWIM: www.swim-sm.eu/index.php/en/- Project Leaflets (MedPartnership, UNESCO-/IHP, UNIDO MedTEST)- Videos: Together for the Mediterranean - The MedPartnership; iPad Application

101

Annex 5. Persons interviewed

(*by ClimVar evaluation consultant during country visits; **via skype )

A. Organizations

Organisation Name Designation

UNEP Division of GEFChristine Haffner-Sifakis Task ManagerKelly West** Former Task ManagerRod Vorley** Administrative/Fund Management Officer

Project Management Unit Lorenzo Galbiati Project ManagerHoda Elturk Information OfficerKaterina Olympiou Administrative Assistant

UNEP/MAP Kumiko Yatagai Fund Management OfficerGiorgos Petridis Administrative Assistant (former MedPartnership

Administrative Assistant)UNEP/MAP MEDPOL Tatjana Hema** Programme Officer

Virginie Hart Programme Officer (Former MedPartnership Marine and Coastal Expert)

UNESCO/IHP Raya Stephan Project CoordinatorMatthew Lagod Assistant Project Coordinator

FAO Pedro de Barros Senior Fishery Resources Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

UNIDO Roberta De Palma** Chief Technical AdvisorRegional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA)

Souha El Asmi MedMPAnet Project Officer

Atef Limam MedMPAnet Project Coordination and Technical Backstopping Officer

Regional Activity Center for Priority Actions Programme (PAP/RAC)

Željka Škaričić DirectorMarina Marković Programme OfficerDaria Povh Skugor Senior Programme Officer

Sandra Troselj StanisicSenior Adviser, Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, Croatia

Veronique Evers ConsultantRegional Activity Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP/RAC)

Roger Garcia Deputy Director

Global Water Partnership Mediterranean (GWP-Med)

Vangelis Constantianos Executive SecretaryAnthi Brouma Programme OfficerDimitris Faloutsos Programme Officer

WWF Mediterranean Giuseppe Di Carlo Head, MPA Unit

102

Organisation Name DesignationProgramme Office Zeljka Rajkovic Marine Officer, WWF (Croatia), MedPan South project

Plan Bleu Antoine Lafitte Programme Officer (ClimVar)

Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE)

Thomais Vlachogianni Programme Officer

B. Individuals in particpating countries

Country Name Affiliation

Algeria

Asma Ouramdane* Operational FP (since 2014-12-18), Deputy Director of Bilateral Cooperation

Samir Grimes* MAP FP. Director de la Conservation de la Diversité Biologique, du Milieu Naturel, des Aires Protégées, du Littoral et des Changements Climatiques

Haouchine Abdelhamid*Raouf Hadjaissa*Dahleb Faiza*Naima Ghalem* MEDPOL FPSouad Bosutifa*Makhlouf Boutiba*Khaber Omar* Director, Coastal and Water DirectorateRachid Khelloufi*Rouf Hadj Essa* Deputy Director

Bosnia and Herzegovina Senad Oprasic**

Project & GEF FP. Head of Environmental Protection Department,Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Croatia Nevia Kružić Former Project FP. RetiredIvan Radić Project FP. Senior Advisor, Ministry of Environment and Nature

ProtectionDanijel Springer Head of Protected Areas, Geodiversity and Ecological Network

ServiceDamir Lučev Head, Spatial Planning Bureau, Sibensko-Krinska County

Želimir Pekaš Chief engineer - senior hydrogeologist, Hrvatske vode (public owned entity for water management)

Irina Zupan Head, Croatian Agency for Environment and Nature

Ljubomir Jeftic Consultant

Ljilgana Dolezal Physical Planner, Urbing Enterprise

Egypt Heba Sharawy Project FP. Head of International Conventions and Organization Department, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Ministry of State of Environmental Affairs

Gehan Mohamed El Sakka Consultant

103

Elham Refaat Abdel Aziz* Manager of Integrated Management for PCBs, General Director of Environmental Development Department

Manal Samy Farag*

Soher Labib*Ahmed Abu El Seoud* Chief Executive of Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, MAP FPMohamed Farouk Osman* Director of Environmental Studies DirectorateNahed El Sayed El Arab* Ministry of Water Resources, Ground Water InstituteMohamed Said Abdel Warth* RAC/SPA FP

Hoda Omar* GEF FP

Libya Nassir Bsher Naser Project FP. Environmental Engineer, EIA Dept, Environmental General Author

Montenegro

Jelena Knezevic Project FP. Ministry of Sustainable Development and TourismMirjana Ivanov Institute of Hydrometeorology and SeismologyDragan Radojevic Dept. of Hydrogeology and Engineering GeologyArdijan Mavriq Vice Mayor, Municipality of UlcinjMilexia Batakovic Environmental Protection AgencyAnna Misurovic Environmental ExpertAleksandra Ivanovic Public Enterprise for Coastal Zone ManagementVasilije Buškovic Agency for Environmental Protection

Morocco Nassira Rheyati Project FP. Chief Engineer, Ministère de l’Energie, des Mines, de l’Eau et de l’Environnement

Tunisia Mohamed Ali Ben Temessek*

Project FP. Chef de Service, Direction Générale de l’Environement et de la Qualite de la vie

Nabil Hamada* General Director, Ministry of EnvironmentKawther Tliche* Director of APAL, Ministry of EnvironmentSaba Guellauz* MPA focal point, APALAdel Hakim Aissawi* Director of Ecology and Combat of DesertificationSamira Nefzi* Ministry of AgricultureRania Bani* Ministry of IndustryBakar Tarafia* Phosphogypsum companySoha El Asmey* Project manager, MedMPANetAtef Leman* Project officer, MedMPANetAwatef Al Arabi Al Messai* Ministry of Environment

Palestinian Territories Samer Kalbouneh Project FP. Director of Projects Department, Environment Quality

Authority

104

Annex 6. Evaluation schedule

MP-MedPartnership consultant; CV- ClimVar consultant

Milestone TimelineInception Report submitted to EO 25 November 2015Inception Mission – Final PSC meeting and final event

2- 13 November (PSC meeting 3-4 November, Athens)

Evaluation Mission- Croatia & Montenegro (MP) 8-13 NovemberEvaluation Mission – Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt (CV) 1-4 December (Tunisia)

5-9 December (Algeria)Egypt?

Telephone interviews, surveys, etc. November-DecemberTelecon on preliminary findings 24 February 2016Zero draft to Evaluation Office 20 AprilReview of zero draft by EO 20-26 AprilDraft 1 report to EO 2 MayEO comments to consultant 14 JuneDraft 1 shared with UNEP Task Manager, project teamComments to consultantDraft 2 report to EODraft Report review by stakeholdersComments to consultantsFinal Report submitted to EO

105

Annex 7a. MedPartnership Regional Component: Mid-term evaluation Theory of Change diagram

106

Annex 7b. MedPartnership Regional Component: Terminal evaluation Theory of Change diagram (Assumption in green boxes at top, Drivers in grey boxes at the bottom of diagram)

107

Annex 7c. Review of Outcomes to Impacts for the MedPartnership project

Results rating of project entitled:

Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Regional Component: Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas

Ratin

g A

Ratin

g (+

)

Ove

rall

Outcomes Intermediate states Impact (GEBs)

National policy/legal/institutional reforms identified and adopted

Policy/legal/institutional reforms adopted by countries; SAPs & NAPs effectively implemented.

Management bodies effectively deliver on their mandates and collaborate in integrated approaches to address transboundary problems.

Tools, technological approaches and stress reduction measures replicated and upscaled by countries/private sector) to address hotspots throughout the Med.

Project results mainstreamed into national and regional policy frameworks and development planning.

Climate variability and change integrated into ICZM and IWRM processes, and adaptation strategies developed and implemented in all the countries.(see Annex 7b for the 2nd set of intermediate outcomes)

Improvement in ecological and environmental condition of the Med and climate change adaptation ensures increase in ecosystem goods and services and improved socioeconomic benefits and well-being of users

AA+

‘Hig

hly

likel

y’

Capacity building and institutional strengtheningIncreased scientific knowledge of the Mediterranean LMEStress reduction achievedIncreased knowledge of countries and donors on innovative technology to reduce pollution and increased scientific knowledgeImproved coordination and participation of relevant stakeholders in SAPS and NAPS implementation (also an impact driver)

108

Ratin

g ARating justification: The project’s

intended outcomes were delivered, and were designed to feed into SAP and NAP implementation, other ongoing processes and programmes in the region. MAP has been designated as the principal institution responsible for the overall coordination, implementation, and oversight of the SAPs.

Rating justification: The measures designed to move towards intermediate states have started and have produced results, which clearly indicate that they can progress towards the intended long term impact.

Rating justification: The overall rating of AA+ corresponds to ‘Highly likely’. The '+' rating reflects stress reduction resulting from interventions such as the TEST and PCB disposal and MPA intervention during the life of the project.

109

Annex 8a. Summary of expenditure on GEF funds as at 31 December 2015 (UNEP budget line and UMOJA categories)

2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4

T o t a l t o 2 0 1 4 U M O JA C a t e g o r ie s T o t a l t o 2 0 1 4 (U m o ja )

2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6

T o t a l E x p T o D a t e (In c l .C o m m itm e n t s )

P e r 5 t h S C M e e ti n g O c t 2 0 1 5

B a la n c e U N E P B U D G E T L IN E / O B JE C T O F E X P E N D IT U R E U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $ U S $

1 0 P R O JE C T P E R S O N N E L C O M P O N E N T1 1 9 9 P r o je c t p e r s o n n e l 1 ,2 2 3 2 1 7 ,5 7 8 3 1 7 ,5 4 6 3 3 0 ,4 0 5 1 5 8 ,6 1 1 2 4 2 ,7 0 3 3 0 8 ,3 5 0 1 ,5 7 6 ,4 1 71 2 9 9 C o n su lt a n t s 0 0 2 5 1 ,9 4 2 8 7 ,2 4 4 1 2 8 ,8 0 6 7 2 ,9 6 0 2 1 8 ,0 3 7 7 5 8 ,9 8 8

1 3 9 9

A d m in su p p o r t

3 0 8 2 4 3 1 9 ,1 1 4 1 0 ,0 7 1 4 4 ,8 1 7 7 6 ,6 0 2 5 9 ,8 9 6 2 1 1 ,0 5 2

S t a ff & O t h e r P e r s o n n e l C o s t s (M A P ) 2 ,6 0 5 ,6 7 7 6 6 4 ,3 9 2 1 3 1 ,7 5 3 3 ,4 0 1 ,8 2 3 3 ,5 2 6 ,1 6 2 1 2 4 ,3 3 9

1 6 9 9 T o t a l t r a v e l o n o ffi c i a l b u s in e ss (a b o v e st a ff ) 0 0 2 0 ,6 8 8 3 5 ,6 0 4 1 2 ,8 9 0 3 0 ,4 5 9 2 6 ,8 5 0 1 2 6 ,4 9 2 T r a v e l S e e b e l o w S e e b e l o w S e e b e lo w S e e b e l o w S e e b e lo w S e e b e lo w1 9 9 9 C o m p o n e n t T o t a l 1 ,5 3 1 2 1 7 ,8 2 2 6 0 9 ,2 9 0 4 6 3 ,3 2 4 3 4 5 ,1 2 4 4 2 2 ,7 2 4 6 1 3 ,1 3 3 2 ,6 7 2 ,9 4 8

2 0 S U B - C O N T R A C T C O M P O N E N T

2 1 9 9S u b - c o n t r a c t s ( M o U s/ L A s U N c o o p e r a ti n g a g e n c ie s) 0 0 5 9 7 ,5 0 0 -4 7 ,6 5 0 5 5 7 ,2 2 6 4 3 9 ,9 5 7 4 8 4 ,3 1 7 2 ,0 3 1 ,3 5 0

2 2 9 9S u b - c o n t r a c t s ( M o U s/ L A s n o n -p r o fi t su p p o r ti n g o r g s ) 0 7 7 ,4 8 1 2 8 2 ,0 1 9 5 7 8 ,1 3 3 6 7 1 ,3 1 6 1 ,8 1 5 ,6 7 6 6 0 1 ,4 7 4 4 ,0 2 6 ,0 9 9 IP D i r e c t 6 ,0 6 8 ,0 8 9 1 ,7 4 3 ,8 8 2 0 7 ,8 1 1 ,9 7 1 7 ,6 3 8 ,8 3 3 -1 7 3 ,1 3 8

2 3 0 1 S u b - c o n t r a c t ( In t e r p r e t e r s fo r M E D P O L a c ti v iti e s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ,6 4 1 1 0 ,6 4 12 3 9 9 T o t a l su b - c o n t r a c t s 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ,6 4 1 1 0 ,6 4 1

2 9 9 9 C o m p o n e n t T o t a l 0 7 7 ,4 8 1 8 7 9 ,5 1 9 5 3 0 ,4 8 3 1 ,2 2 8 ,5 4 2 2 ,2 5 5 ,6 3 3 1 ,0 9 6 ,4 3 1 6 ,0 6 8 ,0 8 93 0 T R A IN IN G C O M P O N E N T

3 2 9 9 G r o u p t r a in i n g 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 ,2 1 8 4 1 ,2 1 83 3 9 9 M e e ti n g s/ c o n fe r e n c e s 0 0 5 1 ,1 1 1 2 ,8 4 1 3 7 ,6 8 4 -4 ,3 8 0 1 2 1 ,1 9 6 2 0 8 ,4 5 1 T r a v e l 3 7 6 ,1 6 1 3 5 ,3 6 4 5 ,6 1 1 4 1 7 ,1 3 6 6 0 9 ,3 2 7 1 9 2 ,1 9 1

3 9 9 9 C o m p o n e n t T o t a l 0 0 5 1 ,1 1 1 2 ,8 4 1 3 7 ,6 8 4 -4 ,3 8 0 1 6 2 ,4 1 4 2 4 9 ,6 6 94 0 E Q U IP M E N T & P R E M IS E S C O M P O N E N T

4 1 9 9 E x p e n d ib le e q u ip m e n t

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0

M a t e r ia ls , S u p p lie s, C o m m o d iti e s 1 ,0 0 0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0

4 2 9 9 N o n -e x p e n d ib le e q u ip m e n t

0 0 0 0 0 2 ,4 1 0 1 2 ,7 2 1 1 5 ,1 3 1

E q u ip m e n t , V e h ic le s , F u r n it u r e 1 5 ,1 3 1 1 5 ,2 9 8 0 3 0 ,4 3 0 3 0 ,1 5 1 -2 7 8

4 3 9 9 P r e m ise s , e t c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 9 9 9 C o m p o n e n t T o t a l 0 0 0 0 0 2 ,4 1 0 1 3 ,7 2 1 1 6 ,1 3 1

5 0 M IS C E L L A N E O U S C O M P O N E N T5 1 9 9 O p e r a ti o n s a n d m a in t e n a n c e o f e q u ip m e n t 0 0 0 0 9 ,9 5 1 0 0 9 ,9 5 15 2 9 9 R e p o r ti n g c o st s 0 0 0 2 ,5 4 6 0 3 0 3 ,8 1 2 6 ,3 8 8 C o n t r a c t u a l S e r v ic e s 1 6 ,3 3 9 1 ,5 0 3 0 1 7 ,8 4 2 4 8 ,5 7 6 3 0 ,7 3 4

5 3 9 9S u n d r y

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,0 0 0O p e r a ti n g & O t h e r C o st s 1 5 ,0 0 0 1 ,1 7 3 3 0 8 1 6 ,4 8 0 3 5 ,9 5 1 1 9 ,4 7 0

5 4 9 9 H o sp it a li t y & e n t e r t a in m e n t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 5 9 9 E v a lu a ti o n 0 0 0 0 5 9 ,4 9 4 -1 2 3 -1 5 0 5 9 ,2 2 1

5 9 9 9 C o m p o n e n t T o t a l 0 0 0 2 ,5 4 6 6 9 ,4 4 5 -9 3 1 8 ,6 6 2 9 0 ,5 6 0

T O T A L w it h U N E P P A R T IC IP A T IO N C O S T S 1 ,5 3 1 2 9 5 ,3 0 3 1 ,5 3 9 ,9 1 9 9 9 9 ,1 9 4 1 ,6 8 0 ,7 9 5 2 ,6 7 6 ,2 9 3 1 ,9 0 4 ,3 6 2 9 ,0 9 7 ,3 9 7 9 ,0 9 7 ,3 9 7 2 ,4 6 1 ,6 1 3 1 3 7 ,6 7 2 1 1 ,6 9 6 ,6 8 2 1 1 ,8 9 1 ,0 0 0 1 9 4 ,3 1 8

110

Annex 8b. Co-finance anticipated and actual as at 31 December 2015 (in US$, rounded to nearest $)

Co-financing source Cash In-kindOther

(in-kind) TOTALMAP Anticipated 1,877,329 2,134,604 4,011,933

Actual 1,669,229 3,042,918 4,712,147FAO, UNESCO Anticipated 440,000 2,100,200 2,540,200

Actual 440,000 1,254,708 1,694,708EC, AECID, FFEM, MAVA, Gov't Italy Anticipated 14,062,115 14,062,115

Actual 11,516,768 11,516,768Participating Governments Anticipated 14,100,000 14,100,000

Actual 13,652,150 13,652,150GWP-Med, WWF-MedPO Anticipated 1,193,000 1,253,542

Actual 1,966,432 1,996,432MIO-ESDCE Anticipated 60,542

Actual 30,000SCP/RAC, SPA/RAC Anticipated 488,600

Actual 472,212Other Sources Anticipated 2,126,988 227,200 2,842,789

Actual 661,094 227,246 1,360,552Total Anticipated 18,061,044 6,422,334 14,327,200 38,810,578

Actual 16,064,641 4,988,719 13,879,396 34,932,756

111

Annex 9. The TE Consultant

SHERRY HEILEMAN

EducationPhD in Marine Biology and Fisheries, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric ScienceMPhil degree in Zoology/fisheries biology, University of the West Indies, Trinidad & Tobago.

Area of expertiseIncludes project development and evaluation, integrated marine and coastal ecological/environmental assessments, fish stock assessment and management, transboundary diagnostic analysis (GEF International Waters projects), and integrated natural resources management.

Professional experienceConsiderable experience at regional and international levels (Caribbean, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia), including over 12 years with international organizations on donor-funded regional and global environmental projects (project design, evaluation, coordination, technical studies, etc). Among these were the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) project (mid-term evaluation); Bay of Bengal LME project (mid-term evaluation); Coastal resilience to climate change project (terminal evaluation); COAST project (terminal evaluation); Volta Basin terminal evaluation; Caribbean Sea LME Project (TDA); and Gulf of Mexico LME Project and Artibonito River Basin Project (project design). Also worked with UNESCO-Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission as the coordinator of the LMEs component of the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Project. Considerable experience regarding assessment and management of large marine ecosystems and in tropical fish stock assessment and management and marine integrated environmental/ecological assessments. Author of a number of peer reviewed publications in international journals as well as book chapters.

Employment2003-Present: Independent environmental consultant2000-2002: UNEP, Division of Early Warning and Assessment (Nairobi) 1995-1999: Institute of Marine Science and Limnology, National Autonomous University of Mexico 1980-1995: Institute of Marine Affairs, Trinidad & Tobago

112